Today's Topics:
1. anarkismo.net, Greece, They are wearing the doll -
Announcement of the ESE of Ioannina and Rethymnon for the
pre-emptive increase of salary[machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. anarkismo.net: Macedonian and the misery of the left by The
blast [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Australia, asf-iwa: "The Rich Will Never Let You Vote Away
Their Wealth" - Victorian Socialists; An Anarchist Response - ASF
Geelong (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. bangladesh asf: Review of Walter Rodney's How Europe
Underdeveloped Africa Part 1/3, News by akmshihab
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
It has already been 7 years since the abolition of collective bargaining agreements and
the treaty for most, if not all, sectors of work is steadily deteriorating. In particular,
the abolition of the mandatory power of collective sectoral agreements in May 2012
automatically reduced earnings by up to half, since the minimum wage is now defined by the
decayed National General Collective Agreement which prevailed almost everywhere. ---- This
means that any laborist claim that has taken place in the branches for decades has taken a
walk and any agreement between trade unions and employers has ceased to be legally and
institutionally, consolidating state control in terms of working conditions and working
conditions. In other words, wage fluctuations are now in the hands of each minister or
better than any party design.
Since then, a series of anti-labor laws have been introduced, heavy taxes, a further
reduction in basic salary, a third memorandum. At the same time, we experienced
alternations between governments and individuals, who all promised promises of tax breaks,
increases in wages and pensions, exits from the crisis, scraping of memoranda (page-page
or even) and other imaginative jokes. These governments are sometimes depicted right once
supposedly leftist.
The latter even think they have a proactive agenda and will follow a different strategy to
defend the interests of the unemployed, the unemployed, the dying. But the reality is that
when the election is over, it is clear that the faces of the state remain one of the faces
of the power chairs: the expansion of the interests of the capital and the bosses. A more
timely promise by the SYRIZA government is the modification of the National Of the General
Convention and the increase in the minimum wage when (randomly) there is talk of early
elections.
This particular government, which has rightly proved to be worthy of its predecessors,
with its ongoing approaches to the elimination of the working class, "forces" the bosses
to throw us back a snare of those who helped steal us. Another tricky ballot that aims to
empower the people in the upcoming parliamentary elections. No one can guarantee that this
increase is secured, especially since the basic salary is tied to budget deficits.
In addition, the communal state game can not convince anyone when one hand "caresses"
supposedly the workers, and with the other throws billboards, either by reducing the
duty-free or by intensifying and clinging to timetables. The fanfare of the rises did not
touch the bosses at all, especially the thousands of companies that pay with black wages
and underclared work. Undoubtedly, nothing has been given to the workers by the state and
the capital.
The improvement of the material conditions of survival has occurred through collective
struggles and demands, organization of the state and opposition to the workplace. We do
not have any pre-electoral illusion, instead we are proposing class struggle with
fellowship and solidarity, away from parties and their promises
. To get back that our bosses have stolen and continue to steal us: insurance, salary,
free time, our lives.
GENNAIES WAGE INCREASES WITH SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION hours COLLECTIVE LABOR CONTRACTS
WITHOUT STATE INTERVENTION STRUGGLE FOR LIFE AND DIGNITY NO PEACE WITH THE STATE AND THE
BOSSES
libertarian unions Ioannina
ese.ioanninon.squat.gr - ese.ioanninon@gmail.com | fb: IE of Ioannina
ELEFTHERIA SYNDICALISTIC UNION OF RETHYMNO
eserethymnou.espivblogs.net- eserethymnou@espiv.net | fb: Rethymno ESE
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31311
------------------------------
Message: 2
What we have to worry about in this period is not only the dynamics that we see in the
foreground but also those we do not see, because only by oversimplifying the harmonious
relationship between the bourgeois state and the peasants, we forget that they have
drowning and falling into a completely anti-dialectic phase. The fact that there have been
left-wing anti-imperialist touches throughout this climate makes things even more ominous.
Because when everything is intimidating and when everything meets in a cloudy field of
invocation of the Greek people, who always knows and never understands that all four, the
critical attitudes are falling back and increasing the confusion of the blur and populism.
Factors that generate monsters. If not, and this is historically attested.
The Macedonian and the Left's Misery
i) The Movement of Neo-Darkness and its Components
In the last year, the stir of the Macedonian issue has created a strong oppositionalist
stream of nationalist texture against the SYRIZA government. This year, a major social
movement has been developed against the agreement to resolve its nomenclature, which has
even been anti-governmental. The formation of this movement is blurred from the very first
moment of its formation, representing a broad and diverse political and social geography.
On the one hand, we have the main opposition to mobilize its broader party base, with the
help of many media, friends close to it , which, of course, has an important opposition to
mainstreaming this into its agenda, with the main cause of social unrest against the
government. From this point of view, the Macedonian issue is also instrumental in its use,
and very likely if it was in the government to be obliged by the Treaties to apply the
same policy sample applied by SYRIZA. In the same direction, there are also many different
voices of the neo-liberal political and media block, which also have more than one reason
to want a governmental destabilization. We also have the mechanisms of the Greek Orthodox
Church and of the various mechanisms, organizations, non-organizations and official
representatives to mobilize the social base of the faithful, representatives of retired
military officers in the army, navy or aviation, and associations of friends of the army
and armed forces in their own general public, all kinds of nationalist branches (from the
now serious, but still a bloody parliamentary Golden Dawn, to the most radical and
extremist extremist and grupo-sculptures), a wider social base of sprawls that make up the
common parties and organizations such as ANEL LAOS and the Greek Assembly of Artemis Sora,
an allied population of paratroopers living still in the climate of 2004 and the frantic
kitsch festivals for the victory of National Greece (including ancient Greek uniforms,
helmets, make-up in the color of the national flag and various other idols usefulness) and
patriotic parties out-parliamentary left as the Popular Unity Panagiotis Lafazani and
Cruising Konstantopoulou Freedom of Life. It should also be noted that their position in
favor of the Macedonian protest demonstrates public debate and prominent artistic
personalities, either through their speeches, as in the case of the left Mikis
Theodorakis, or by intervening in favor of collecting signatures for a referendum on the
occasion of a referendum the Prespa Agreement as in the case of well-known
performer-songwriter Aphrodite Manos who announced that they have signed well-known names
like composer Stavros Xarhakos, singers B Asilis Papakonstantinou, Lavrentis Macheritsas,
Yannis Kotsiras, Manolis Mitsias, the actor Thodoris Atheridis, the script writer and
actor Michalis Reppas, the journalist, Semina Digeni and others. Also in statements
against the Agreement have advanced well-known entrepreneurs - players in the world of
football, such as Marinakis, and in many cases groups of supporters have distinctly
participated in protests, raised banners in competitions, or published notices on the
issue. It is interesting to see how this movement is shaped at the level of practices
within this one year. On the one hand, we have mass gatherings and rallies in cities such
as Athens and Thessaloniki, which show a gradual recession culminating in the day when the
bill in question was voted, where the protesters were undoubtedly very few. We must not,
however, miss out on the fact that these massive mobilizations, at their peak, touched the
limit of half a million in January 2018 in Thessaloniki (as opposed to anti-aggregations,
which at their gathered only 2,000 to 2,5,000 people in Propylaea February 2018). There is
also a growing controversial mood of protesters, which is instigated by the far-right
components of this movement, but on the other hand it is not possible to observe that in
the concentration on the Constitution on 20/01/2019 the conflicts with the police were
massive and dynamic. In addition, within this one year, we have seen on the margins of
concentration the cruel attacks on libertarian and self-organized areas of the wider
anti-authoritarian and competitive movement (others more successful and others not),
individual attacks on immigrants or insults on Jewish monuments, but also a revival of
protest practices that we had seen in the years of frontal anti-monumental struggles,
which include members' targeting in their regions and attempts to sabotage political
speeches at events, while we have recently witnessed the phenomenon of student occupations
on the occasion of the Macedonian one. All of this is of no importance. This year's
demonstrations and rallies were much more impotent than those of 92, the fascists many of
the scenes did with the tolerance or cover of the cops, the nationalistic occupations did
not spread to all schools, and unlike the antifascist speech has now been expressed far
more extrovert, much more dynamically and much more structured. Is it enough for us to be
complacent? It is a fact that the movement against the Prespa Agreement is currently, in a
vertical de-massification as his inability to block the Accord apparently caused
disappointment in a large part of his base. The same frustration that was caused by the
weakness of the anticommunication front blocking the passage of the memorandum bills.
However, as in the latter case, there were broader radicalizations of people who were
kneeling at the events and were disappointed with their outcome, so there are, and we have
no doubt about it, now. Besides, it is of great importance that while we are in a time
when social movements are generally weakened and massive anti-government demonstrations
are to emerge from 2012, suddenly the political atmosphere and public speech are being
charged for so long, and with such tension, over a agendas of such orientation, which will
definitely be left behind. And this is the case for nationalism. For its part, the
Government has to contend that it solves a chronic problem between the two countries in a
way that does not go beyond the so-called national line, promoting a narrative about
peaceful co-operation and of the two peoples, while the opposition accuses her of
violating the national negotiating line on the issue by conceding things that should not
have been, such as language and citizenship, and the right-wing, right-wing,
Christian-Orthodox and Patriot They scream that our Macedonia was sold out. Parallel
pieces of the left still admit this Agreement, exclusively as a government truce with NATO
in order to bind the country more closely to the chariot of Euro-Atlantic imperialism with
the accession of Northern Macedonia to the western military coalition and the further
encirclement of Russia in the Balkans (to be fair, of course, some left components dare to
dazzle the past months of critical positions to strengthen the Greek position in the
Balkans). However, it is worth noting the statements of the KKE and its various
executives, which he even proceeded to mobilize against the Prespa Agreement (with its own
framework always, of course, and taking care to stay away from massive centralized
gatherings), which were added to all those statements from the left, which speak of "
scandalous "irresponsibility, and for a fake creation of a minority Macedonian issue by
the EU and NATO forces.
(Cf.https://www.iefimerida.gr/news/473967/kke-skarfalose-stin-akropol...ikona )
The attitude of the KKE, and several other parts of the Left, in particular the so-called
anti-imperialist left, plays its own its role in the widespread spread of the nationalist
frenzy of our days as we will see below. However, in order to better understand the
magnitude of the moral and political decline of the official Communist and
anti-imperialist left, it is first of all a brief historical flashback.
ii) Macedonia is one?;
It is now difficult to question the strong presence of the Slavic element in the
geographical area, which successively recognized the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman empires
as a province of Macedonia as early as the 6th century AD. (and that's because more and
more evidence is coming up). For any population with such deep roots in a region, roots
that count for nearly 1,500 years, it can only be considered self-evident their right to
self-identification geography base. The Macedonian Slav Macedonians are Macedonians, not
because they attract any origin from the ancient Macedonian tribe of Alexander the Great
(these are indeed nationalist boobs), but precisely because for almost two millennia,
generations of generations were born to them, they grew up and died in Macedonian
territory. Because Macedonia has now become the land of their own fathers, so according to
this most popular interpretation, their own homeland.
Any problem with this population, which defacto has acquired Macedonian locality, starts
very early and is not really how it will be determined, but what it will be. This was
because it had the misfortune to take root at a longitude and breadth of the Balkans,
which it had already formed since the end of the 19th century, a matter of contention for
three newly constituted national states, which are none other than Greek, Serbian and
Bulgarian. Each of these three new-born states wished the largest part of the Macedonian
pie, as long as it was still an Ottoman province, and as it is known at that time, the
Great Powers were somewhat willing to recognize new nation states, naturally enough to
turn them into their protectorates, and could of course have credible claims about the
national origin of the population within them. It is no coincidence that from the middle
of the nineteenth century different inventories begin to circulate according to their
origins, showing different demographic results: Greek shows a majority of Greek Orthodox,
Serbian majority of Slavic Orthodox, and Bulgaria majority of Bulgarian Orthodox followers
of the Bulgarian Exarchate. Together with demographic cuisines aimed at presenting each of
these three states with their own majority minority within the Ottoman Empire, the
propaganda and proselytism of the local people went on to compete for the preservation of
a national consciousness of the three , compared to others. At the same time with the
claim of the area, we also have the claim of the people living in it, who are extremely
mixed with each other. What we actually mean is a clear denial of these three prisoners,
even to examine on a hypothetical basis , the possibility of creating a new autonomous
state in the region of Macedonia, which will cut them off from the territories they
consider privileged. In the years of the so-called Macedonian struggle and the Balkan
wars, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria's competition over Macedonia includes extreme phenomena
of violence, terrorism and ethnic cleansing at the expense of the Slav-Macedonian element,
in order either to recognize any of these three powers as their native motherland or
simply to leave their home soil,
It is no coincidence that the rebellion of these people, which had preceded in 1903, in
order to claim their autonomy from the Ottoman Empire, suffered harsh and bloody
repression with the help of the above states, especially the Greek, to the Ottoman
authorities. The fact that Ilinden's movement was autonomous and attempted to move away
from relations of influence with any of the three neighboring states is confirmed first of
all by the statements of the Chedralists that have been a pioneering force in the
rebellion: "After the people first became aware of his situation, it has to be taught that
in such a case this change will be replaced under a new regime providing lifetime and
price guarantees, but to this end he must understand that he needs a war well-organized
and able to last for a long time. When there is a timidity, when there are Turks you must
also inspire that you are aiming at a constitutional status, providing guarantees of equal
justice in all classes and guarding and drawing the attention of the people to this point.
At the same time, you enlighten the spirits of the warriors, you should not neglect to
draw their attention to the Macedonian issue in the middle of the world. You have to be
addicted to not expecting help from Russia, Austria, Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece, but
relying on their own strength. You must develop that freedom is not given as alms to the
peoples but it is acquired by arms, and when the weapon is in the hand then the force
increases "..." must not be forfeited because of the possibility that the yoke will be
released either through Bulgaria or for another force, on the contrary it must have to
convince them that through the service of existing but recently organized same powers, it
will be possible to regain that independence ... "It must be noted that the people on the
Macedonian issue should be enlightened internationally and convinced that Macedonia
because of ethnological reasons it is impossible to attached to any other state. It is
necessary to enlighten the people that the purpose of the neighboring states is not aimed
at the redemption of it, but in the attachment of the country of divorce.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31302
------------------------------
Message: 3
With the looming federal election, the campaign circus ramps up again. ASF Geelong
contributes this article in order to clarify its anti-electoral stance, given the
development of new electoral groupings in Victoria drawing substantial support from
activists on the far left. ---- On the 16th of February 2019 the Victorian Socialists held
their first official ‘founding' conference. Commitment to the new electoral project was
formalised by Socialist Alternative, Socialist Alliance, and individual activists. After
their first electoral efforts (during the last state elections), the conference decided to
continue the electoral project and contest the upcoming Australian federal elections. The
regroupment of the larger Trotskyist organisations in Victoria into the Victorian
Socialists project has created the most significant electoral socialist presence in the
country since the original Communist Party. Large numbers of volunteers have been
mobilised, some progressive unions gave relatively significant financial support, and the
initial campaign garnered a reasonable amount of media attention. In some electorates, the
Victorian Socialist project brought in a larger portion of the vote than socialists have
received in a long time, and only missed out on one seat because of preferencing. While
performing stronger than socialist electoral efforts in recent decades, this is not an
earth shattering result. As anarchists, we can draw lessons from the achievements of the
Victorian Socialist campaign in mobilising people around working class issues, but we are
not here to sing praises for the project. It is more important is to remind ourselves of
the reasons we believe electoral politics is a dead end for the working class.
Anarchists do not hold anti-electoral politics for no reason. We have always been well
aware that the state cannot become a path to liberation - attempts to use it as such by
the socialist left results in the individuals in parliament becoming, at best, an
irrelevance with their campaigns a waste of time and resources, and at worst, becoming the
most virulent defenders of the state and privilege. Despite the undoubtable integrity of
some genuine revolutionaries entering parliament, a principled position in parliament can
only last so long.
"The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rouge." -
Emma Goldman
Given that a government of socialists, either in the minority or majority, do not control
the entire apparatus of the state under bourgeois democracy, they must attempt to
implement a minimum plan. As standard practice, socialists argue to increase taxes on the
rich, or to use funds from other state sectors and invest them in poorer communities. This
is all well and good, but by involving themselves in this task, they suddenly find
themselves burdened with running the very system they claim to want to overthrow. Consider
what would happen if a Victorian Socialist candidate is elected and achieves some of the
aims of their manifesto, for example, the proposed recycling plant in the northern
suburbs. Though the plant will provide some positives - it will create jobs, and meet
environmental needs - in a capitalist system, workers will inevitably struggle with their
pay and working conditions. Subsequently, the socialist councilors will have to mediate
the struggle and potentially discipline striking workers. This highlights an inherent
contradiction when ‘revolutionaries' in government have no choice but to administer the
capitalist state. The greatest idealism is shipwrecked on the shores of the reality of
capitalist economics. It may sound like quite an abstraction, but historical precedence
would indicate this is a very real concern. Throughout history workers have had to face
‘socialist' strikebreaking many times.
Some of the groups and members within the Victorian Socialist tent will point out that as
revolutionaries they should be using parliament to denounce bourgeois democracy (the best
line in this situation), but others will see the small reforms as achievements. They will
push the party to continue this line of ‘progress', drawing more and more resources and
activists towards parliamentary activity. Given that the Victorian Socialists are a broad
project and not an explicitly Leninist organisation, there will be more space for
reformists to manoeuvre and rise within the ranks of a growing party apparatus, pushing
increasingly conservative demands on the basis of ‘practicality', that is, what will get
them elected. This presents yet another tension between electoral needs and the
maintenance of revolutionary principle.
When a party measures progress by the vote tally they can become obsessed with chasing
numbers. Imagine a campaign that may have initially started with a radical program. As the
party gains seats and power, it is likely to drop its more radical ideals in order to
maintain its positions in parliament. Though supposedly progressive, in its last terms of
government Labors inability to legislate for gay marriage was a clear example of acting
from fear of being ‘too radical.' In the end, it was the conservatives that legalised gay
marriage - after decades of pressure from social movements. We see the same process taking
place today with the rightward shift of the Greens, from an activist party to one of
‘professional politicians'. Slowly but surely, Victorian Socialists, like every socialist
party before them, will become more invested in the running of, and for positions within,
the state, until such a situation that they become the very defenders of electoral
democracy. At this stage, the Socialist Equality Party have a better position in regards
to participation in bourgeois democracy!
We know that it is social movements and struggle that force politicians left, not
parliament. If that were not true, we wouldn't have seen significant reforms benefiting
the working class come from conservative politicians during periods of mass movement and
rebellion. On February 19th this was proven once again with the striking teachers in West
Virginia, USA, defeating market-oriented reforms by Republican politicians. By contrast,
we wouldn't have seen leftist parties around the world implement tragic and authoritarian
laws and punishments upon the working class again and again, betraying them at pivotal
moments.
Where Victorian Socialists are leading people is a dead end. If we really want socialism,
the working class must learn to organise and lead struggles themselves. Placing hope in
politicians is misleading when workers would be developing militant class consciousness
based on their direct actions. Victorian Socialists members will certainly argue that this
is not what they are attempting to achieve. Rather, they believe they are playing the
‘inside, outside' game; where they leverage parliamentary office to help build social
movements. This was famously Adam Bandt's justification for becoming a Greens MP.
Participation in electoral politics is the socialist's shortcut, just as insurrectionism
is the shortcut of ‘anarchists'. Both seek to skip the slow, often painstaking work of
building the consciousness of a class that can fight for itself, and organise its own
structures to run the world. Elections are not just another ‘tool in the toolbox', rather
they are a tool that actively harms the other work a revolutionary organisation is engaged in.
Elections build the idea that you sign someone up, everyone votes, and when the preferred
representative gets into parliament, the party's demands are implemented. It's fun and
it's easy to hand out ‘how to vote' cards - to spruik the virtues of your preferred
candidate against the others - but it doesn't develop the critical relationship with
electoral and capitalist politics we have to work towards. Millions of people today are
disaffected with politicians. Adding socialists to the list of vultures that ‘get voted in
and do nothing' will not help us build revolutionary ideology. Parliamentary activity does
very little to build the capacity of the working class itself to struggle, let alone the
idea that the working class can run the world. As MAC-G have written "A Victorian
Socialist in the Legislative Council of Victoria might make stirring speeches in support
of grassroots struggles and might fight hard to get reforms out of this neo-liberal Labor
Government, but if they don't explain to the working class that this isn't how we'll win
Socialism, they'll be leading workers in the wrong direction."
In practical terms, consider the example of Kasama Sawant, the Socialist Alternative
(unrelated to the Australian grouping of the same name) councillor in Seattle. Kasama was
elected in 2013, hailed as a major breakthrough as the first ‘socialist' elected anywhere
in the USA for generations. She was elected around a demand for "$15 Now", that is $15 an
hour minimum wage within the Seattle region. She faced significant hostility from business
interests, and was funded by the unions to fight for this platform. Though elected, she
failed to get this reform through and ‘$15 now' became ‘$15 later..' Whilst in Seatac, a
city basically next door, the labour movement maintaining autonomy managed to get a
republican to pass the legislation without sacrificing themselves to parliamentary limits.
The limits of relying on politicians is clear; we see Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez voting to
fund ICE in the USA, while simultaneously claiming to want its abolition. The DSA project
is yet another example of a growing anti-capitalist consciousness kneecapped by electoral
politics. The DSA project is yet another example of growing anti-capitalist consciousness
While it is as much a reflection of the current limits of politics within our unions, and
paltry compared to the donations to the Labor party, the funds given to the Victorian
Socialist project could have gone into ‘on the ground' organising efforts, fighting
campaigns and strike funds.
We can only wonder at the wisdom of the Victorian Socialist campaign at this time. No one
from any group within the Victorian Socialist tent has put out a significant theoretical
piece explaining their decisions to engage as ‘Victorian Socialists' in parliamentary
politics yet. Socialist Alternative refused to participate in elections until only last
year and haven't yet justified their change of tactics publicly with a material analysis.
The closest thing one can find to Socialist Alternatives position on electoral
participation being articulated is Mick Armstrong's 2016 piece from Marxist Left Review
‘The Broad Left Party After SYRIZA.' While promoting a healthy understanding of the limits
of SYRIZA, Armstrong defends the actions of DEA, Socialist Alternatives sister
organisation in Greece that participated in the SYRIZA coalition, with the ‘inside,
outside' (or ‘fighting with both fists') strategy (struggle inside parliament, struggle
outside in the movements),
When SYRIZA enacted its historic betrayal of the Greek people, DEA led a revolt that split
away from the party... only to repeat the tactic and participate in the formation in a new
coalition, Popular Unity. The difference is that now they take a miniscule amount of the
vote, losing any position in parliament and having virtually no influence on the struggle.
First as folly, then as farce.
We believe they made a fundamental mistake by participation in the first place. The left
can be more effective in power at implementing capitals agenda than the right, as social
movements that become invested in a party take their foot off the gas in order to allow
the new government to ‘perform.' As such, all the resources that went into the struggles
within SYRIZA who would inevitably betray the Greek people by virtue of participation in
the state could have gone into developing an even more militant element to the class
struggle in Greece. To the union movement and building strikes, to the anti-fascist
struggle, to the countless occupations and direct action struggles, to defending the
worker controlled factories like VioME - where we see embryonic forms of workers democracy
and expropriation of capitalist interests. As Fred Hampton points out, you have to build
power where the people are. As anarchists we know that these new forms of social power are
infinitely more important than the struggle within parliament.
Armstrong would disagree, arguing in the MLR piece ‘To directly counterpose building
strikes and radical movements in the streets as the alternative to a political
intervention in a radical left party like Syriza is to lapse into a syndicalist or
movementist error that fails to see the dialectical connections between the two. The
forces needed for a revolutionary party are not going to be accumulated simply by building
mass movements and strikes; and conversely mass movements and strikes are ultimately not
going to be successful in challenging capitalist rule without a mass revolutionary party
being built.'
Armstrong would appear to see the dialectic incorrectly. Rather than a project like
Victorian Socialists acting as a foothold for radical ideas in a broader workers movement,
participation in parliament establishes a foothold for reformist ideas in revolutionary
organisations. We believe in building mass social organisations that can overthrow
capitalism - but they are not the vanguard party.
"...according to the Syndicalist view, the trade union, the syndicate, is the unified
organisation of labour and has for its purpose the defence of the interests of the
producers in the existing society and the preparing for and the practical carrying out of
the reconstruction of social life after the pattern of[libertarian]Socialism. It has,
therefore, a double purpose..." - Rudolph Rocker
As such, the accusation of syndicalist and movementist errors only holds true to a
socialist who believes that only the vanguard party can lead the working class to make the
revolutionary rupture with capitalism. However as anarchists and libertarian socialists,
we know that historically this is untrue. Syndicalism also provides a mass organisation
where workers take up the battle of ideas in all facets of society, making the critique of
both capitalist and state socialist visions, and promoting the vision of a free and equal
society. It is only the narrow view of socialists who believe revolutionary unions cannot
play this role. Despite eventual failure of the classic workers revolutions, the working
class has nonetheless shown its capacity to overthrow the state and capitalism without the
‘vanguard party.' Revolutionary experiments in the Ukraine ‘19-21 and Spain in ‘36
attempted to establish a society where ‘the government of persons is replaced by the
administration of things'. It would be facetious to argue that the Bolsheviks were the
only ‘successful' example of working class revolution when what they achieved was a bloody
and repressive failure certainly no worse than the failure of the libertarian revolutions.
If your only criteria of revolutionary success is the crushing of counter-revolutionary
military forces, then the Bolsheviks were indeed successful. However if your criteria is
the building of a workers democracy from the bottom up, then they failed almost from the
very start. World revolution has not been achieved, but we can remain certain that
socialists in parliament is a strategy that cannot lead to socialism.
"We assert that social problems can only be resolved by a revolutionary movement that
transforms the economy while at the same time destroying bourgeois political
institutions." - Garcia Oliver
While within the libertarian movement we can debate various forms of anarchist
organisation from syndicalism to especifismo, anarchists all seek to propagate the idea of
self-management and direct action, and assist the working classes to build new forms of
self-governance beyond capitalism. This differs vastly from the Leninist party. After all,
the state and party have proven in the last instance to be the defenders of bourgeois
interests and the gravediggers of the social revolution. Even if we agreed with Lenin, we
doubt very much that the defence of electoral participation by the Bolsheviks in Russia in
1917 in any way translates to a strategy for today - especially for a ‘mass socialist
party' that isn't yet much more than a coalition of propaganda groups based out of the
universities.
Only coherent and combative anarchist organisations with distinct class politics can
become an alternate pole of attraction to fill the space on the revolutionary left -
anarchism is becoming a stronger revolutionary current around the world once again, given
the abysmal failure of Marxist politics in the 20th Century, and with ‘21st Century
Socialism' proving to achieve either nothing, futile reform, or some meaningful reform but
no capability to move beyond capitalism (Socialist Alliance in the UK, SYRIZA, and
Venezuela come to mind respectively.)
Internally to Victorian Socialists, fractures within the revolutionary cadres of Socialist
Alternative and Socialist Alliance will begin to become more pronounced as resources are
pulled from practical needs and in the situation of a Victorian based party - other state
branches. Revolutionary socialists who understand the dead ends of electoral politics will
break away from electoral projects like Victorian Socialists in time, and we must be there
to meet these militants who have always had the right idea in understanding the many
problems of capitalism. What they will need is a better perspective of the state.
Far more important than winning over militants from the socialist groups however is
winning new workers over to the anarchist movement. For too long the anarchist movement in
Australia has been internal looking. Our struggle as libertarians should be where the
working class itself is fighting, and our ideas should inform our action. It will be our
motion that draws people in, not just our ideas - this for example is part of the initial
explosion of ‘success' of the Victorian Socialist project.
Anti-capitalist ideas are growing traction around the world, and we want anarchism to
become the dominant form of revolutionary politics once again. It is easy to forget that
anarchism was once the predominant ideology of the revolutionary left, a far cry from the
liberal mess we find passing for much of anarchist politics today. To return to relevance,
we require insertion into the important movements and struggles of our time to help build
their mass character, and playing a leading role in the redevelopment of a labour
movement. To counter the growth of electoral projects anarchists also need easy ‘on ramps'
to politics too, but not ones that will channel workers into handing their fate over to
political parties. To build our own organisations and militant movements requires
developed and specifically anarchist politics to guide our strategies and tactics. It is
our task to reveal the fatal flaw of following strategies like the Victorian Socialists
electoral attempts, and reaffirming that the revolution can only be made by the struggle
of the workers themselves.
"The working class has no Parliament but the street, the factory, and the workplace, and
no other path than social revolution." - Buenaventura Durruti
ASF-IWA Geelong Section.
For a more comprehensive understanding of the limits of electoral politics we recommend
the pamphlet "Socialist Faces in High Places", by the Black Rose / Rosa Negra Anarchist
Federation.
http://asf-iwa.org.au/asf-geelong-the-rich-will-never-let-you-vote-away-their-wealth-anarchists-and-the-victorian-socialists/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Walter Rodney was a writer and activist who was influential in the anti-imperialist, the
Black Power, and socialist movements across the Black and African worlds. In 1980, Rodney
was assassinated in his homeland of Guyana by a car bomb while participating in local
politics. Rodney is probably best remembered as the author of the very influential How
Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Published in 1972, Rodney's book has become a classic work
on the political economy of Africa and underdevelopment generally. Rodney has a place
alongside writers like Andre Gunder-Frank, Samir Amin, Malcolm Caldwell, Arghiri Emmanuel
and similar theorists who have studied modern imperialism and underdevelopment. This
tradition foreshadows the development of Leading Light Communism. Even though almost four
decades have passed since its publication, the book is a must-read for those seeking to
understand the poverty of Africa and the wealth of Europe and North America. It helps us
understand how the wealth of First World countries is a result of poverty in Third World
countries. Rodney's work is an important forerunner of the political economy of the
Leading Light Communist movement.
Africa prior to large-scale European contact
Imperialism is not just about armies, labor and gold. Imperialism has a cultural
dimension. When one part of the world systematically oppresses another, it changes not
only the material make-up of those societies, it also affects the cultures. It is a kind
of master-slave dialectic writ large, on a global scale. Part of this relation is the need
by the oppressors to see themselves and their victims as different than they really are.
To justify their inhuman acts, imperialists must invent narratives where they are not the
villain. As part of this, imperialists often portray Africa prior to large-scale European
contact in the fifteenth century as an uncivilized jungle. They portray Africans as barely
out of the forest, as akin to wild animals, as apes. The most extreme version of the
racist and imperialist narrative not only exonerates European slavers, but turns them into
heroes. Slavers tamed apes into men, or at least two-thirds men. Plantations were not akin
to concentration camps. Rather, the plantation was one big happy family. The master was
kindly and paternal to his darker "children." So goes the myth, the lie, of the gentile
South. Some have even claimed that not only that Blacks deserve no reparations, but Blacks
should be thankful to the United States that they were saved from eternal African night.
This kind of narrative, and similar and subtler ones, rest on the myth that Africa was
hopelessly backward prior to large-scale European contact. Rodney thoroughly refutes the
myth. He demonstrates that Africa had a long and rich tradition of civilization prior to
widespread contact with Europe. Although Africa's development was not the same as
Europe's, Africa had long been developing just fine:
"Africa in the fifteenth century was not just a jumble of different ‘tribes.' There was a
pattern and there was historical movement. Societies such as feudal Ethiopia and Egypt
were at the furthest point of the process of evolutionary development. Zimbabwe and the
Bachwezi states were also clearly on the ascent away from communalism, but at a lower
level than the feudal states and a few others that were not yet feudal such as those in
Western Sudan." (68)
Rodney states:
"It can be said that most African societies had not reached a new stage of society
markedly different from communalism." (69)
Early European travelers to Africa were often impressed with what they saw. Rodney quotes
an early Dutch traveler who visited Benin:
"The town seems very great. When you enter into it, you go into a great broad street, not
paved, which seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam...
The king's palace is a collection of buildings which occupy as much space as the town of
Harlem, and which is enclosed with walls. There are numerous apartments for the Prince's
ministers and fine galleries, most of which are as big as those on the Exchange in
Amsterdam. They are supported by wooden pillars encased with copper, where their victories
are depicted, and which are kept carefully clean.
The town is composed of thirty main streets, very straight and 120 feet wide, apart from
an infinity of small intersecting streets. The houses are close to one another, arranged
in good order. These people are in no ways inferior to the Dutch as regards
cleanliness..." (69)
Obviously, there were great differences between Holland and Africa too. However, it is
pure racism to portray Africa as barbaric and uncivilized prior to large-scale European
contact. Such racist conceptions are not based in reality. They are part of a complex,
evolving, and often contradictory narrative that has been used for hundreds of years to
justify the plunder and exploitation of Africa by Europeans and other imperialists.
Similar tales have been used to justify the imperial conquest of the Americas and Asia.
While pointing out early Africa's accomplishments, Rodney does not understate the
differences between Western Europe and Africa. Rodney does not exaggerate the development
of Africa prior to the fifteenth century. Rodney could not be further from contemporary
Afro-centrists who wildly falsify history in order to claim Africa as the center of
virtually all great advances. Rodney is a scientist, not a story teller and myth maker. He
is part of the Marxist tradition. He does does not romanticize pre-colonial Africa. Rodney
is no utopian longing for a return to a "golden age" that never existed. Rodney points out
that African societies had their own contradictions, configurations and distributions of
power.
Imperialist and productivist metaphysics
In the Manifesto, Karl Marx describes the development of Western European society, and the
world, as a march from primitive communism to slave society to feudalism to capitalism to
communism. Although in other writings Marx sometimes postulated other modes of production
like the "Asiatic mode," some have held that this march, this pattern of development, is
inevitable and universal. Often such claims are made with little concrete investigation
into the particularities of development, especially outside of Europe. Such an outlook is
often useful to so-called Marxists who apologize for or even openly align with
imperialism. Unfortunately, these pretenders find some support for their reactionary views
in certain aspects of Marxist tradition, especially those works that overemphasize the
development of the productive forces as the driving force of history. Maoists criticized
certain aspects of the tradition as the Theory of Productive Forces, a revisionist theory.
First Worldists, chauvinists and racists often say that imperialism, despite itself, is
good for the backward parts of the world because it brings technology, it modernizes, it
sweeps away primitive and feudal fetters on development. Thus they invoke Marx to echo the
slaver narrative. This revisionist train of thought is common, in varying degrees, to a
number of revisionists from Kautsky, Trotsky, Khrushchev, Liu Shaoqi, and Deng Xiaoping.
It is even found, although usually to a lesser degree, in Marxists who are upheld by the
revolutionary tradition. By dogmatically clinging to such a Euro-centric and teleological
scheme, one easily becomes an apologist or open advocate for imperialism. This kind
Marxoid imperialism is sometimes referred to as social imperialism. Social imperialism is
especially common to those claiming to be Trotskyists. It is no secret that today's
Neo-cons have Trotskyist origins. Even First Worldist onetime Maoists have taken this kind
of view. Bill Warren of BICO fame and the "Strange Times Maoists" have such a view. Some
of those in the long defunct RIM did too. The argument goes or implies something like
this: Imperialism is positive because it brings capitalism, thus opening the possibility
of socialism. Imperialism is a progressive agent of history according to this teleology.
This view says there is only one road to socialism, the European road through
European-style capitalism. This kind of First Worldist revisionism is especially
unscientific considering that the "advanced" First World countries, in Europe or
elsewhere, do not even have a proletariat and have never experienced anything even close
to a socialist revolution - unless you count the imposition of people's democracy on
eastern Germany by the Red Army as a revolution. The First World should not be considered
developed, but parasitic and maldeveloped in a sense. The reality is that proletarian
revolution has only occurred in what Lenin called the "weak links" of the world system.
This is what Lenin meant when he said the storm center of world revolution was headed
east. In agreement with Lenin, Mao said the East Wind prevails over the West Wind. And it
was Lin Biao who said the whole cause of world revolution hinged on the peoples of Africa,
Asia and Latin America. Rodney is part of this emerging Third Worldist thought, he
correctly points out that Africa does not fit neatly into the Euro-centric teleology that
underlies much First Worldism and social imperialism:
"Both Marxists and non-Marxists alike (with different motivations) have pointed out the
sequence of modes of production noted in Europe were not reproduced in Africa. In Africa,
after the communal stage there was no epoch of slavery arising out of internal evolution.
Nor was there a mode of production that was a replica of European feudalism...The
assumption that will underlie this study is that most African societies before 1,500 were
in a transitional stage between the practice of agriculture (plus fishing and herding) in
family communities and the practice of the same activities within states and societies
comparable to feudalism." (38)
This isn't to say that real trends and patterns are absent from social development. And
certain social development presupposes certain conditions exist. One cannot simply jump to
communism or even socialism. Rodney's survey of African development shows that the
complexity of the real world often escapes vulgar simplifications. Yet Rodney does not end
up in idealism or anarchist utopianism or epistemological skepticism. In this respect,
Rodney shares much with Mao at his best moments. Mao too did not embrace the idealist
position that rejects the idea that revolution and development happens in stages. However,
Mao too understood that development did not always fit into such a linear straight-jacket.
Mao recognized that building socialism in the Third World would mean taking a path that
did not match up exactly with the scheme Marx originally predicted for Europe. Mao built
off Lenin's understanding that imperialism was a real game changer across the world.
Imperialists imposed a socioeconomic configuration on China that Maoists variously call,
depending on what aspect they want to emphasize, "colonialism" or "semi-colonialism,"
"semi-feudalism," "comprador capitalism," and "bureaucrat capitalism." These are the terms
that Maoists have used to describe the underdevelopment that has been imposed across the
"global countryside," the Third World. Mao saw that imperialism altered the mode of
production, the political development and cultural life of the exploited countries for the
worse. The imperialists often enter into an alliance with the most backward segments of
the indigenous populations, the comprador capitalists and feudalists. In some cases,
colonialism even imports and imposes feudal institutions alongside capitalism as in parts
of Latin America. Thus imperialism does not develop a poor country, it underdevelops.
Imperialism is thoroughly reactionary. This is why Lenin identified imperialism as the
highest and last stage of capitalism. Capitalism was no longer progressive in the world.
This is why Lenin called it moribund and decadent. Mao's answer to this was to find
another road to socialism. Mao united all the popular classes under proletarian, communist
leadership in a people's war against the two mountains of imperialism and feudalism, for
New Democracy and national liberation. This laid the groundwork for socialist revolution.
Mao's theory of New Democracy proposes a different sequence of development than the
traditional euro-centric one. This was one of Mao's greatest theoretical accomplishments.
It was Chen Boda and Lin Biao who universalized this aspect of Mao's work. Mao's road was
not simply socialism for China, but rather Mao's contributions applied far beyond China.
Mao, at times, challenged the metaphysical and teleological model in general. At their
best moments, Maoists in China understood that there is nothing inevitable about social
evolution or progress toward social revolution. The claim, common within the revolutionary
tradition, that the victory of the proletariat is inevitable and an absolute law of
history is metaphysical and teleological hyperbole. Stalin once stated that the
proletariat will eventually row the boat to the shore of communism even without communist
leadership. This kind of statement is an expression of a very teleological and
metaphysical conception of progress and revolution. Mao recognized that all social
development is transitional, but in a different way. Mao did not see socialism as a static
affair. Mao said that there is nothing worse than a stagnant pond. Nor did Mao see
socialism as calmly marching toward communism. Mao understood that socialism could only be
understood as a transitional society in flux, filled with violent ruptures, life-and-death
clashes and antagonistic contradictions. "Never forget class struggle!," Mao warned during
the Cultural Revolution. Because of the transitional nature of socialism, because of
remaining inequalities in power and remaining reactionary culture, a new bourgeoisie
arises within the Communist Party and state. This new class seeks to restore capitalism.
Thus class struggle still exists under socialism. Counter-revolution is always a danger.
Socialism does not inevitably transform into communism. Rather socialism can transform
back to capitalism. There is nothing inevitable about victory. The proletariat could row
Stalin's boat in circles until the end of time. This is one reason why scientific
leadership is key. This is why Maoists emphasized the subjective aspect of struggle. This
is why Lin Biao raised the slogan of "Politics in command!" as part of his Four Firsts
campaign around 1959. Later the slogan was transformed into "Mao Zedong Thought in command!"
Science learns. Even though socialism has been lost everywhere, the knowledge of that
experience survives in the form of the highest stage of revolutionary science, Anarcho
Communism. Even though we lost the Soviet Union, China and other other progressive
experiments, Anarcho Communism has preserved the lessons of the revolutionary experience
of the last century. The next time we take power, the proletariat will be able to march
further toward communism. This is one reason it is so important to struggle against
revisionism, especially First Worldism. The last two revolutionary waves are defeated. The
Bolshevik revolution was defeated after World War 2 and the Maoist revolution in China was
defeated in the 1970s. We stand like Lenin before 1917. There are no socialist states. We
stand before the next upsurge, the next wave of revolution. We need to continue the
breakthrough of the Anarchist Movement. Part of this is educating the people in real
communism. Works like Rodney's are very advanced, even by today's standards. They need to
be popularized again as part of this struggle. This is part of putting " Anarcho Communism
in command!" we must abloshe capitalism and Statism from the planet.
Sources
Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington, D.C.: Harvard University
Press, 1981.
http://www.bangladeshasf.org/news/review-of-walter-rodneys-how-europe-underdeveloped-africa-part-13
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten