Today's Topics:
1. avtonom: Russia and China: what is common? by - Michael
Shraibman [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Manifesto of the Union Communist Libertaire UCL -
The inventiveness of the proletariat (fr, it, pt)[machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. France, Manifesto of the Union Communist Libertaire UCL -
The ecological and social urgency (fr, it, pt)[machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. anarkismo.net: Syndicalism or platformism? Syndicalism AND
Platformism! - a reply by the (die)plattform (de)
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. [Argentina] Rosario: The newsletter "La Oveja Negra" No. 64
(August 2019) is out! By ANA [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. cgt andalucia - SOV Madrid: CNT-AIt in fight against
Ferreres and Solé (ca) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
7. anarkismo.net: Maoism vs. Libertarian Socialism? Review of
Elliot Liu, Maoism and the Chinese Revolution; A Critical
Introduction (2016) by Wayne Price (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
8. London Anarchist Federation: Update on 3rd of August
Anti-fascist Mobilisation (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
A modern sociologist, a specialist in macro-sociology, Georgy Derlugyan, notes that the
government is willing to negotiate with moderate opposition and / or undertakes economic
reforms beneficial to a significant part of society when it feels strong fear. Usually,
such fear is caused by unpredictable ultra-radical groups that are gaining strength, those
with whom it is obviously impossible to reach an agreement. In such conditions, the ruling
bureaucracy sometimes becomes interested in negotiations with moderate forces representing
a certain part of society and in reforms aimed at cutting the ground from under the feet
of the radicals. ---- The power only makes the society angry by arrest and searches of
opposition and independent candidates. This is the second step, after they are denied
registration, which will cause an increase in irritation and, possibly, an increase in the
number of protesters. On the other hand, opposition candidates are trying to frighten the
authorities by saying that if they are unconditional supporters of peaceful actions,
arrested or driven out of the square, some non-peaceful people will come after them. But
this is fake. There are currently no peace.
This could work (and to some extent worked, albeit with great creak) under the tsarist
regime, therefore the liberal democrats - the Cadets and others. Were allowed to vote in
the Duma, where they even at some point became the majority along with other opposition
groups . Such was the reality of the events of 1905-1907. But besides the liberal
Democrats - the Cadets, there were also AKP (Social Revolutionaries) and the RSDLP (Social
Democrats) - practical ones who were preparing an uprising, in the name, oddly enough, of
bourgeois democracy (at least during the first stage of the struggle), and in the back the
anarchists and maximalist Socialist-Revolutionaries breathed - advocates of the social
revolution, labor self-government in factories, and direct violence against business in
the process of selecting these factories. Now there is nothing like this. I do not see in
the modern Russian society any analogues of the Social Revolutionaries, the RSDLP and,
moreover,https: //avtonom.org/author_columns/chto-takoe-trudovaya-sindikalnaya-res ... .
However, I may not know something, but even if somewhere there are 10 real or potential
Social Revolutionaries, 7 Social-Democratic revolutionaries, and 5 anarchists, this does
not do the weather. And then - why scare? Do not be frightened by what is not. Radical
nationalists? They are clearly very weak.
If we take another famous example already from modern history - the economic reforms in
China (PRC), then we will see a somewhat similar picture there. The Communist Party, which
ruled the country arbitrarily, did not see any reason to share anything until the late
1970s. Party state bureaucracy ruled not only the army and the police. She owned all the
factories and state agrarian enterprises (they were called "communes") in the village, all
cultivated land. The whole mass of the working population of billion-dollar China worked
for the party-state at these factories and agricultural enterprises and lived very poorly.
But in 1976 there was a large protest action of workers in Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
Thousands of workers, cursing the party and its leader Mao Zedong, entered into a fierce
fight with the police. Wounded appeared on both sides. The magnitude and rigidity of the
working onset were such that"The secret reports of the state security were alarmed: the
workers made weapons at the factories. Extra-plan items - knives, lances, traditional
swords, nunchak. Chinese proletariat most actively prepared the changes." http:
//vkrizis.ru/analiz/za-rabochee-delo-on-na-ploshhad-ushyol/? fbclid = ...A little later,
the peasant revolts began. The peasants began to take land from the state ("communes") and
divide them between their families. They demanded to give them the right to independently
dispose of the products of labor on these lands, threatening the party leaders with
violence. Began violent clashes in the village. Although the party used troops to suppress
protests, the fear of the country's leadership has reached its limit. The history of China
knows many mighty peasant uprisings that overthrew the royal dynasty and seized the land.
Only after this, the country's leadership, led by Deng Xiao Ping, as noted by
Russian-American researcher Alexander Pantsov, agreed to transfer the land to the peasants
so that they could grow food there and sell surplus. The country began economic reforms
over time, improved the lives of a large part of the workers of the city and village. But
in Russia at the present time there are no powerful speeches of workers of similar magnitude.
Of course, it is impossible to retain power on violence alone, but there is an amendment.
Eternal this can not be. But for many years, this can be done. For example, in Iran and
Venezuela, local unpopular regimes have quite successfully suppressed protests for many
years through violence. Therefore, at present, there is no scenario in which the Russian
democratic opposition could take power.
https://avtonom.org/author_columns/rossiya-i-kitay-chto-obshchego
------------------------------
Message: 2
Our conception of socialism is not the fruit of an elaboration outside the struggles of
the proletariat. On the contrary, we affirm that it is the workers and workers themselves
who invented and reinvented the foundations of an alternative society to capitalism,
through their struggles and especially during revolutionary periods. ---- A tramway in
Barcelona in 1936-1937. ---- During the Spanish Revolution, industries and services came
under workers control in Catalonia. ---- At all times and in contemporary times, people
have sought ways to achieve social and political equality. Throughout the world, during
the Paris Commune in 1871, in Mexico between 1910 and 1917, in Russia and Ukraine from
1917 to 1921, with the Korean commune of Shinmin (1929-1931), in Spain from 1936 to 1937
the bases of another possible socialism developed, finally crushed by the bourgeoisie and
/ or fascism, or betrayed by the constitution of a new ruling class. Other examples
include the revolutionary experiences in Chiapas from 1994 and Rojava from 2012 onwards.
Do not repeat the mistakes of the past
Each revolutionary experience, each high point of the class struggle, has confirmed this
aspiration to a society and a recovery at the grassroots level, from collectivized and
self-managed enterprises to free communes.
Our libertarian socialism is therefore the heir to the anti-authoritarian tendencies
developed since the First International by a part of the workers, peasants and social
movements. It is clear that other currents have prevailed for decades: state socialism -
Social Democracy, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism - which opposed the popular
aspirations of self-government and direct democracy and led the popular movements to a
stalemate.
Libertarian communism, developed autonomously by the workers, has opened an extraordinary
perspective for humanity, outlining through concrete achievements a superior form of
democracy.
But historical experiences have also revealed limitations and weaknesses that must be
taken into account. It is for this reason that a coherent project carried by a militant
organization is today necessary to pose the problems that libertarian communism will face
and face.
If the existence of such a project is not an infallible guarantee, it can nevertheless
help the masses in struggle to avoid the errors of the past to reach the complete
emancipation.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?L-inventivite-du-proletariat
------------------------------
Message: 3
The living world is today threatened by climate disruption, the destabilization of
biodiversity, the poisoning of land and water, the artificialisation of land,
deforestation ... The ecological struggle is vital ; it is coherent only by being
anti-capitalist and antiproductivist. ---- Capitalism is based on the need for continuous
growth of production and an extension of its hold. It overexploit the planetary resources.
In order to optimize production and distribution, he has pushed the specialization and
prioritization of spaces through metropolisation. It keeps growing the places of
production, consumption, life and work. ---- The ruling classes feed on the illusion that
the environmental crisis could be solved by technology, without leaving capitalism. They
will fight any measure, even essential, which would threaten their profits.
They are the advocate of a so-called "green" capitalism that promotes partial solutions
exclusively technical, opening new markets without questioning the mortifying tendency to
the indefinite accumulation of capital.
Acceptance of the capitalist framework leads, at best, to individual solutions of
"voluntary simplicity" with a limited overall impact, and at worst a rationing policy for
the working classes, who are the first victims of ecological disasters. The capitalists
confiscate the popular classes the means of choosing how they consume, how they produce,
how they move, and so on. They force them to participate in the destruction of the
environment.
Conversely, we defend the prospect of production that meets the needs of humanity and
respects the limits of the biosphere. Instead of destructive exploitation of nature,
humanity will have to find a balance with other forms of life.
Three revolutions are necessary
* A revolution in production methods. The control of production by peasants will be the
spearhead of the fight against agribusiness multinationals: end of the agricultural
specialization of entire regions ; questioning the massive use of pesticides and
industrial fertilizers ; Abolition of industrial farming, chain slaughtering, industrial
fishing ...
* A revolution of lifestyles. We fight for an egalitarian society in which the means of
production will be socialized. A new way of life can be born. The organization of cities,
balances between cities and rurality, the organization of new habitats - promoting the
pooling of goods and facilities - everything can be transformed. A rich social life,
associating conviviality, culture, science, physical activities, festivities ... will be
able to hatch and the possession of material goods will no longer have a central place in
human life. A society where human beings no longer consider themselves superior to other
species, control the impact of their settlements and activities on the environment, in
order to live in harmony with the rest of the living world.
* A revolution of exchanges. Against free trade, we uphold the "productive autonomy."
Every region of the world must be able to produce what it needs once freed from the
dependence of multinationals. This does not mean autarchy, but short exchange channels,
and the limitation of long exchanges to what can not be produced locally.
Entire sectors of the capitalist economy will have to disappear, in particular all that is
related to the commodification of living things, the control of the dominated classes,
advertising, overpackaging, private appropriation of land, buildings and tools from
production, to the stock market and the domination of finance, to productions reserved for
privileged classes, to the absurd transport times imposed by socio-spatial segregation, to
the extraction of resources from the subsoils of the South ...
The use of raw materials with a high rate of danger, difficult to recycle and whose
extraction destroys the environment will have to be severely capped and replaced as far as
possible. We fight as much fossil fuels as nuclear.
We claim the exit of the nuclear power with immediate stop of its civil use (except the
medical uses) and military, because it is an authoritarian system linked to the military
industry implying a police management, excessively dangerous, whose pollution is
irreversible, and the antipodes of a decentralized and democratic energy model. The energy
needs, reduced by the new modes of production and life, can be met with renewable sources
of energy, produced in priority locally and according to needs.
A social ecology at the heart of the struggles
Environmental combat is intimately linked to the fight for another type of society. It is
inseparable from the struggle for direct democracy and economic equality. The construction
of a convergence between the social struggles and the environmental struggles is thus the
fundamental brick of a consistent ecologic strategy.
We reject in advance any undemocratic logic, in which experts - too often linked to the
dominant classes - would decide instead of the populations concerned.
We do not expect anything from the institutionalization of environmental struggles, nor
institutional responses to the environmental crisis. They are inefficient and preserve the
interests of the capitalists.
We want to help build the ecological struggle in a pluralistic way:
within specifically ecologist associations, defending the taking into account of the
interests of the popular classes and seeking debate and alliances with the social movement ;
within the trade union movement and associations fighting against housing, health ...
fighting for the ecological dimension to be systematically taken into account and for the
social movement to become one of the actors of environmental mobilizations.
by participating in the creation of collective tools of production and distribution.
Partial victories obtained by local resistance are important. They will only make sense if
they weaken the ideological hold of capitalism. Thus alternative experiments - constructed
in convergence with a dynamic of social struggles claiming the socialization of the means
of production - will make it possible to popularize libertarian imaginaries and to
structure elements of counter-power that are indispensable to the overthrow of capitalism.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?L-urgence-ecologique-et-sociale
------------------------------
Message: 4
Criticism is a gift. Usually, however, just this special present is packaged a little
loveless, which is why it is then accepted so reluctant. ---- Also a recent, quite
polemical discussion with our text "
https://www.dieplattform.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/layout17shre-7.pdf " falls into
this category: the brochure " https: // www .syndikat-a.de / index.php? article_id = 2 &
cat = 3923 & prod = 5422 ", published by Syndikat-A as a copy of the journal
https://tsveyfl.blogspot.com/p/start.html . ---- The author Frederik Fuss has a strong
bitterness in the face of the state of the anarchist movement. Even the term "movement" is
too much of a good thing for him. This frustration has very relevant reasons - with regard
to the criticism in our text seems to be consensus. We only doubt that in this way he will
be successful in doing something about them.
As for us, we are still grateful for the input. We do not need harmony and no
(cross-organizational) consensus on all issues. What do we care about the packaging ... is
free.
If we ignore this, there are certainly some noteworthy points that can help to better
describe our positions. As the author himself notes, it was never our claim to provide a
comprehensive explanation of the world with this first text - but a basis for discussion.
We are therefore right in pointing to a few empty spaces in our text: for example, the
hitherto unformulated position on anti-Semitism - which should not only be mentioned in
relation to the shift to the right. Such blanks exist in the text even a few more, which
are not mentioned in Fuß criticism. We are aware of that. We will also take a clear stance
on other situations of oppression and domination that are too brief or unmentioned.
As the successful paragraph on the strengths of platformism emphasizes, "the collective
process of negotiating the concepts first enables individuals to place their own thoughts
and conceptions of and about the world in a fruitful relationship with those of others.
Dissent can and does not have to be carried out ... have been suppressed. "We have already
successfully started this process, as both the large number of positive and negative
reactions to our text show.
Insinuations such as, we would understand capitalism or patriarchy as purely interpersonal
relations of domination, at least show us that we need to formulate and expand these
points and relationships again more carefully and clearly. With a little benevolence, a
different point of view would have been deducible from our text: The sentences "At the
center of capitalist functioning are not human needs, but the achievement of (maximum)
profit and capital utilization" and "Patriarchy the world-wide system of oppression and
exploitation of women "should become clear that we are not concerned with shortened and
personalized rule of domination.
The statement that gender is not social (that is, social) constructed, but that it is
"rather ... a social process that generates and enforces gender," we are then a bit
puzzling. But of course there are also material foundations and emotional, institutional
and physical influences regarding "ideological dressing", no question. We have the
impression to address these in our text at least partially. But even here, everything is
certainly even clearer.
There are also affirmative passages - such as criticizing some of the current (albeit
over-subscribed) developments in FAU to which our text indeed provides answers: for
example, the reference to a clear, anarchist viewpoint in everyday union work or the
proposal a supraregional awareness structure.
It must also be said: Not a few of us are organized in the FAU and participate in internal
discourses there. We see our approach and that of anarcho-syndicalism not as opposites,
but as complementary and natural siblings.
This assessment also leads us to reject the variant of platformism that Frederik Fuss
represents. The resulting accusation against us is that we are not platformistically
enough, or that we are anethistic anarchist in a platform costume. It contains, based on
passages of the historical platform of 1926, an exclusive representation claim and the
attempt to gain a power of definition over the anarchist movement. For good reasons, which
can be found in our text, we think that this is neither feasible nor desirable. Many
present-day, platformist organizations, who likewise do not want to enforce "anarchist
monoculture", think this similarly. However, this does not mean that we have a synthetic
organizational approach, as assumed b Fuß. Our organization is based on the unity of
theory and practice, goals and strategies. This applies to all constituents and members of
the platform. This organizational approach as well as a diverse, well thought out and
socially effective anarchist movement are not mutually exclusive.
Therefore, we also resolutely oppose his proposal to join the FAU in an attempt to
transform it into an organization based on platform principles. Just as we disagree with
the assessment, "with the FAU there is already an organization in Germany that fulfills
some requirements of the idea of platformism". The FAU, with its "principles and
fundamentals" of 2015, has a very general and brief theoretical basis. However, the
individual FAU syndicates do not have a common understanding of practical activity, nor a
common understanding of strategies to achieve their goals (ignoring the general strike).
The FAU as an anarcho-syndicalist union has a clear and correct current focus in the
syndicalist labor struggle on anarchist basis - the FAU's strict anarcho-syndicalism
demanded by Fuß (taking into account its current capabilities) is, in our opinion,
fulfilled. As a platformist organization of ideas, we do not have to focus primarily on
labor disputes, but can also contribute to other social struggles of the wage-dependent
class - continuously and as the main focus of our organization. We therefore have a
broader policy space in the current situation.
To come back on Fuß reasoning: The platformism has nunmal since its founding paper
developed almost 100 years ago. In the wake of its Latin American character, the
especifismo, we must further disappoint ourselves: we do not want to work only with
syndicalists and synthetic anarchists on a practical level. We want to get into the
balance of power and social struggles - in other words, wherever we are strategically
given, we will happily work with people who do not even see themselves as anarchists.
Anyone who, on the basis of a claim of platform superiority, sees the synthesis on the
next level alone in practical cooperation, will probably have to rely on it.
Of course we would be happy if FAU or FdA would adopt some of our approaches in the
future. But once that happens, then on the basis of voluntariness, insight into their
correctness and not through intra-anarchist confrontation and repression. This strategy,
even if it were promising - which it absolutely is not - would only weaken and split the
movement as a whole.
But we have started to strengthen the anarchist movement. In order for us to be able to
set ourselves up effectively according to our platform-based and especifismo-derived
approach, we need our own organization. This also applies to the - never completely
finished - development of a consistent, theoretical basis, a binding structure, which is
just not arbitrary, and an effective practice. "Fight where you stand" is certainly an
important principle - not only in terms of labor, but also on Mietenkämpfe, social
revolutionary twists of identity politics or ecology - but not the only one. An altered
perception of anarchism does not have to be enforced, especially in a "scene", but in the
social public sphere. Whether that can succeed,
We also have to reject other arguments.
For example, the assumption made in the air that our view of National Socialism is based
on the condensed fascism theory of the Stalinist Dimitroff, according to which fascism is
virtually only a puppet or particularly "consistent" expression of the financial capital.
Again, we may have to clarify something once again. If we say that "fascism can serve as a
way out of capital in times of crisis", that does not mean "capital is behind fascism".
Instead, this refers to the simple fact that fascism and capital in the past have always
made good ally and the nationalist as well as capitalist-dominated competitive society,
unfortunately, provides good conditions for slipping into fascist barbarism. This also
applies to the current shift to the right, for example, for the promotion of AfD by
political groups from the economy.
In order to recognize this, it is not necessary to put different phenomena in one. Even
though we were concerned with fascism in general, the practical efforts of National
Socialists to "negate the capital ratio" were largely ideological in comparison to the
extent of their practical collaboration with capital groups. The great emphasis on
racist-racist and anti-Semitic content is indeed an important distinguishing feature of
National Socialism compared to many capitalist actors, as well as other fascist movements.
But even if capitalist interests were frustrated partly and especially towards the end in
favor of more direct power and violence during National Socialism, The Volkish element
historically had the function of pacifying, mitigating and overriding class antagonisms
and not their cause. National Socialism unleashed the class struggle from above, partly
replacing wage labor with open slavery, not to mention the barbaric, absolutely
dehumanizing forced labor in the labor and concentration camps, which to this day brings
German companies the necessary advantage in world market competition.
Nor do we by any means reduce all migrants to Muslims - but it remains important to note
that the latter have become a primary enemy image for some of today's right, which in turn
makes this reduction. Not only because of "envy and admiration," as Fuß claims, but above
all on the basis of anti-Muslim racism, "barbarian discourses" and a self-image as
gatekeeper of a Christian-Western hegemony.
That racist attitudes in society tend to decrease statistically with stronger contact with
the people they refer to, as well as structural differences in urban and rural areas. Of
the assumed automatism was with us also no speech. However, we gladly accept the incentive
to deal with "identity diffusion" as the basis of right attitudes.
It is also a pity that Fuss accuses us of not being concrete enough, for example, to
discard only platitudes in terms of the anarchist concept, but often even fiddling around
in a cloud of just such - only more influenced by academic jargon. But that does not make
up for the lack of concretization of criticism. It would have been exciting for us to find
out exactly what he still misses or suggests. Unfortunately, instead of formulating
answers himself, it often remains in pure negativity - which is legitimate, but also
significantly more unsettling.
Unlike the author, we do not consider the anarchist movement irrelevant. Otherwise we
would hardly want to get involved in it to the degree. On the contrary: at the latest
after the decline of real socialism, some anarchist contents in left-wing movements have
become hegemonic. In the same way, the social movements increasingly recognize that
suppression is mutually supportive and intersectionally interwoven - anarchism, with its
declared opposition not to one, but to all forms of domination, offers here a theoretical
basis in which various social movements converge could. Unfortunately, organized anarchism
has failed to capitalize on this great potential due to the weaknesses we have identified.
Despite all this again - thanks for the 32-page brochure - which also refers to our text.
We have read them partly with great profit and are also very pleased that we could
continue to fuel the discussion about anarchist organization.
Related Link: https://www.dieplattform.org
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31494
------------------------------
Message: 5
In this issue: ---- * Solidarity-Memory-Rebellion. We consider it necessary to make a
critical reflection on the struggles, coordination, and communications that have taken
place in these two years since the disappearance and murder of comrade Santiago. Of course
the difficulty of this lies in the extent and diversity of this process. Therefore, if we
approach well what we know more closely from having accomplished it, we also believe it is
necessary to refer to this common action that, although geographically decentralized,
shares a sensibility and a project. We will try to make a deep commitment, trying not to
be anyone's spokesperson, but to speak from a broader "we", as we become part of the
struggle of so many other comrades in different parts of the territory.
* Timeliness of the Mapuche struggle.
* Lazo Editions, new titles: "Direct Action in Uruguay 1968-1973" (Rodrigo Vescovi),
"Reproduction of Everyday Life" (Fredy Perlman) and "Situationists and Anarchism" (Miguel
Amorós).
* Wenüy keeps meeting us. About the new presentations of this book and its second reprint.
You can pick it up from the library, find it at some points in this and other cities, or
read it online, and download it from here. To read, reflect, share, copy and spread.
>> Newsletter blog, to read this and previous issues:
boletinlaovejanegra.blogspot.com
Related Content:
https://noticiasanarquistas.noblogs.org/post/2017/08/23/argentina-edicao-especial-do-boletim-la-oveja-negra-paricao-with-santiago-maldonado-liberdade-para-
facundo-jones-huala
anarchist news agency-ana
------------------------------
Message: 6
The company FERRERES Y SOLÉ CORREDURÍA DE INSUROS (Isaac Peral 46, Madrid) belonging to
the National Network of Insurance Brokers E2KBROKERNET, exploits its workers and
retaliates those who resist their abuses claiming their labor rights. ---- This is the
case of our partner, affiliated with the Trade Unions Trade Union of Madrid of CNT-AIT.
For 5 years he has worked for FERRERES Y SOLÉ, performing functions corresponding to a
professional category superior to that contained in his contract. For this reason, he
demanded that he be included in the professional category that corresponded to him
according to the functions he performs, receiving a refusal from the management of the
company, which regularly practices authoritarianism and disregard for the rights of its
workers. In addition, from that moment the company professionally degrades our partner,
initially taking away some of the functions performed ...
A little later, the company urges women workers to sign an alleged data protection
document, which includes abusive clauses that imply the acceptance of economic
responsibilities by the workers, clearly contrary to the law. Our partner is the only one
who resists the pressures, refusing at all times to assume those clauses. He also warns
the company that, if the pressures persist, he will go to the Labor Inspectorate to report
these facts.
From that moment, they begin a series of hostile attitudes towards our partner, stripping
him of all the functions he had been performing, exercising abusive control over her, even
accessing her work team with her passwords, moving her from her usual location. inside the
office, with the purpose of isolating and pressing it.
For this reason, our partner has filed a lawsuit against the company for violation of
fundamental rights. The trial will take place soon and the fight has only just begun.
Exploitation companies such as FERRERES Y SOLÉ will always have CNT-AIT in front of us, we
will fight it with our most powerful weapons: self-organization, mutual support and direct
action.
We demand the end of harassment against our partner and the recognition of their labor
rights. We call the boycott against FERRERES Y SOLÉ and all the companies that exploit and
harass. In the face of exploitation, authoritarianism, threats and reprisals, the only
effective response is solidarity, mutual support, self-organization and direct action. In
short, the anarcho-syndicalism practiced by CNT-AIT.
If they touch us, they touch us all.
In the face of abuses, organization and workers' struggle!
http://elmilicianocnt-aitchiclana.blogspot.com/2019/07/sov-madrid-cnt-ait-en-lucha-contra.html
------------------------------
Message: 7
Maoism from a Revolutionary Libertarian Socialist View ---- Elliot Li's book analyzes
Maoism, and its roots in the Chinese Revolution, from an anarchist and libertarian Marxist
perspective. ---- This small book is about the ideology of Maoism and its development out
of the Chinese Revolution. As the author says, that revolution shook the world. The world
is living with its aftermath today. And it is possible, as there is a regrowth of U.S.
radicalism, that Maoism may have an influence on a revived U.S. Left. So it is important
to understand Mao's legacy. ---- Most works on this topic are either academic (and
implicitly pro-capitalist) or pro-Maoist (or sometimes Trotskyist). Unusually, Elliot Liu
claims to "offer a critical analysis of the Chinese Revolution and Maoist politics from an
anarchist and communist perspective." (2)
It may not be entirely clear what that means,. The term "communist" includes everything
from anarchist-communism (the mainstream of anarchism since Kropotkin) to Pol Pot's
auto-genocide. However Liu writes that he is "in line with many anarchist and anti-state
communist critics of Marxism-Leninism...." (105) He is identifying with the libertarian,
autonomist, humanist, and "ultra-left" trends in Marxism-in opposition to mainstream
social-democratic or Leninist versions of Marxism.
This is demonstrated by the theorists he cites and the theories he uses-which he
integrates with anarchism. Liu never quite spells this out, but rather demonstrates it in
the course of the book. I am in general agreement with this anarchist/libertarian-Marxist
approach-often summarized as "libertarian socialism." (See Price 2017.) This makes me
especially interested in how he applies it, which is sometimes problematic.
While presented as an "introduction" to Maoism, this book covers a great deal of material.
The conclusions Liu reaches are these: "The Chinese Revolution was a remarkably popular
peasant war led by Marxist-Leninists....The Chinese Communist Party acted as a surrogate
bourgeoisie, developing the economy in a manner that could be called ‘state
capitalist'....[This]transformed the party into a new ruling class, with interests
distinct from those of the Chinese proletariat and peasantry....Mao and his allies
repeatedly chose...beating back the revolutionary self-activity of the Chinese proletariat
and ultimately clearing the way for openly capitalist rule after Mao's death....I consider
Maoism to be an internal critique of Stalinism that fails to break with Stalinism." (2-3)
In places, Liu refers to Maoist China as "state socialist" without explaining what this
means. Perhaps he means that the regime calls itself "socialist" due to its
nationalization of industry, even though it is really not socialist but state capitalist.
I agree with a "state capitalist" analysis of Maoism and the Chinese state Mao built. (For
"state capitalist" theory as developed in the analysis of the Soviet Union, see Daum 1990;
Hobson & Tabor 1988.) Liu supports his "state capitalist" view in several ways: by
examining the history of Maoism, by considering its theory, and by a political-economic
analysis of the Chinese economy.
History
This little book covers a great deal of dramatic history in a short span, and does it
well. At times Liu leaves things out, probably due to this limitation of space. For
example, he does not mention how Stalin, preferring to make a deal with Chiang Kai-Shek,
tried to hold back the Chinese Communists from taking power after World War II-and how Mao
rejected Stalin's "advice". Nor does it mention the Korean War and its effects in speeding
up statification of industry. But he covers the development of the party and its armies,
the conquest of power, the Hundred Flowers, the Great Leap Forward and its concomitant
famine (perhaps 35 million died due to Mao's mismanagement), the Sino-Soviet split, and so on.
Politically problematic is Liu's coverage of the Maoist "turn to the countryside." In the
twenties, the Communists were driven from the cities and the urban working class. Stalin
and his agents in China had told the Communists to ally with the capitalist Nationalists
(Koumingtan), to trust them, and in no way to oppose them. This strategy left them open to
terrible massacres when the Nationalists turned on them. They abandoned the urban working
class, instead building armies based in the peasantry.
Liu describes the historical events but does not analyze their class meaning. According to
classical Marxism, the modern working class is collectivized by industry, forced to work
cooperatively, and living largely in cities. This creates a tendency (not an inevitability
but a tendency) for workers to self-organize and rebel, to fight for their
self-emancipation. The peasantry, however, has a scattered existence, away from the
centers of power and knowledge. Therefore the peasantry, Marx concluded, has the ability
to rise up in fierce revolutionary wars, but it needs to be led by some urban grouping-if
not led democratically by the working class than by an authoritarian elite.
I am not going to argue here whether this classical Marxist view is correct-or, rather, to
what extent it is correct, and under what circumstances. But Mao's withdrawal from the
urban proletariat and basing his movement on the peasants organized in an army, seems to
fit with this theory. In any event, Liu shows that Mao's forces constantly sought to
balance their influence on the peasants: rousing them against the landlords and rich, but
then holding them back from overthrowing the landlords and the rich. "Even at the height
of the CCP's victory, Mao was unwilling to sanction agrarian revolution from below or
worker self-management in the cities." (42)
This was in the service, supposedly, of building alliances with sections of the ruling
classes. This included a "United Front" with the Nationalists against the Japanese
imperialist invaders (which neither Mao nor Chiang fully followed) and then the "New
Democracy," set up during and after the Communists' victory. Supposedly New Democracy was
a non-socialist, capitalist, stage of the economy and the state, which came before
socialism. It sounded like the old reformist, Menshevik, two-stage theory-except that the
Communists insisted that they, not the capitalists, would be in charge as the ruling
party, even during this capitalist "stage." "New Democratic strategy positions the party
as an alienated power in a given territory, standing above and mediating between different
classes, while laying the foundation for the future emergence of a ‘red bourgeosie'." (123)
The most interesting part of the book's historical survey is its coverage of the
"Proletarian Cultural Revolution" (1965-1967). There was a fight within the ruling layers
(of the party, the army, the state, and the economy-the nascent ruling class). For support
for his side, Mao roused the seething discontent of students and youth. Rebellion spread
to the army ranks, to peasants, and the workers. The aroused masses went beyond what Mao
had wanted. In Shanghai in 1966, workers from seventeen factories formed a Workers'
General Headquarters.
"As in many cases throughout history, the social turmoil generated by the movement
compelled workers to begin managing daily life themselves. Transport, water, and
electricity...the WGH thus began coordinating production and transportation of goods, as
well as public transit, through its own mass organizations. In many factories,
worker-elected committees supplanted managers and party committees....Full power seizures
eventually took place in twenty-nine provinces and municipalities." (84-85)
The Shanghai People's Commune and the other communes were crushed by force. So were all
the "ultra-left" radical forces. But they had been vulnerable due to their naive trust in
Mao and his supporters.
Theories
The book covers Mao's theoretical writings, such as his discussion of dialectical
philosophy. It looks at Mao's "contributions" but criticizes his perspective as Stalinist
and bourgeois. Frankly, I think that Liu takes Maoist theory a bit too seriously, as
though it were a real part of the development of philosophy. Whatever may be the strengths
or weaknesses of Hegel, Marx, and Engels in using dialectics, for Stalin and then Mao it
was no longer real philosophical discourse. "Dialectical materialism," in the hands of the
Stalinists, had become simply what Marx called "ideology"-not a system of ideas but
rationalization to cover up class reality. It can be analyzed as ideology in this sense
and Liu is best when he does that.
The book examines Mao's concept of the "mass line." This means that Communists should find
out what working people wanted and develop a program which responded to these wants. As
Liu shows, this concept may be interpreted in a revolutionary or an opportunist manner.
What he leaves out is the underlying fact that the Communist' program could not tell the
people the truth. It could not say that the Communists would replace the landlords and
capitalists with a bureaucratic capitalist ruling class. It could not say that after the
revolution the peasants and workers would continue to be exploited and oppressed. So
methods had to be found which appeared to support the wants of the working people but
really was a lie. That was why "the mass line concept admits an incredibly wide range of
interpretations, many of them authoritarian in character." (118)
Liu correctly condemns the "substitutionist and idealist assumptions" of Maoism. The party
is not only one part of the working class and peasantry but supposedly a separate and most
important agency. The party claims to know the true science of society, unlike the masses,
and knows what to do. It is the rightful leadership of society and should be obeyed in all
things. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" (which might have once meant the rule of the
actual workers and their allies) is the rule of the party, which stands in for the workers
and oppressed. And what makes the party the stand-in for the people is that it has the
right ideas. Those who have the right ideas are "proletarian." Those who do not are
"bourgeois", "reactionary," and "capitalist-roaders." "In common with manny Leninist
interpretations of vanguard leadership, these methods assume the validity of the party's
political line and obscure proletarian self-activity." (126)
Political Economy
Liu demonstrates that the Chinese economy is capitalist by showing how it fits Marx's
analysis of capitalism (his "critique of political economy"). He cites a prominent Maoist
text on political economy and shows how its description of China is that of a capitalist
market economy, following Marx's categories. And he himself applies capitalist descriptors
to China. (Speaking as an anarchist, I find this one of the main advantages of using
aspects of Marxism.)
This is true even if we focus on the most "socialist" phases of Mao's China-after New
Democracy (which was officially "state capitalist") and before the current, post-Maoist,
period which is openly capitalist (if still run by a "Communist Party"). The workers and
peasants still worked for wages. Ruled by the law of value, they produced
commodities-goods which sold on the market, inside China and internationally. Their labor
was alienated-working for someone else. There was a labor market, if a controlled one.
This is the capital/labor relationship at the base of the economy. Enterprises competed
with each other. The overall society produced in order to accumulate, grow, and expand its
mass of commodities.
It has been argued that no society could immediately leap from capitalism into
socialism-especially not a poor, oppressed, exploited nation such as China had been.
Therefore there was bound to be capitalist survivals in the economy, for a period, even an
extended period. So therefore the previous argument proves nothing.
Whether or not a partially-capitalist transitional stage is necessary before socialism,
this does not refute the evidence. China was not ruled by workers and peasants and other
oppressed people nor was it in transition to a socialist (or communist) society. It was
ruled by a minority elite of bureaucrats who were agents of capital accumulation. They
were increasing capitalist trends not decreasing them.
Conclusions
At times, Liu seems to be (mistakenly) seeking a balanced critique of Maoism, looking for
both positive and negative aspects and bringing the positive aspects into revolutionary
theory. "Only when Maoism is subjected to an immanent critique...will it be possible to
effectively re-embed elements of Maoism in a coherent political project...." (3) In the
concluding chapter, he states, "Today's revolutionaries have much to learn-positive and
negative-from the struggles of the Chinese proletariat and peasantry, party cadres and
military units, and the actions of the CCP leadership." (105) But learning positive
lessons from the struggles of the Chinese popular classes is one thing; claiming that
there are positive lessons to learn from the CCP leadership is quite another.
However, at the very end of this chapter, Liu clarifies his views, "For revolutionaries
who aim at a free anarchist and communist society, Maoism as a whole must be rejected. It
may be possible to extract particular strategic concepts, work methods, or slogans from
the Chinese experience....But these elements must then be embedded in a set of
revolutionary politics far different from those developed by Mao...." (126) This seems an
appropriate attitude toward Maoism from the standpoint of revolutionary libertarian socialism.
Although stating his "anarchist and communist" perspective, Liu seems to base most of his
argument on a libertarian interpretation of Marxism (which he uses well). Unfortunately,
Liu does not mention that Mao's authoritarian assumptions were not only rooted in
Stalinism but even in Marxism, or at least in aspects of Marxism. In particular, Marx
proposed that the working class could take power by creating a party and taking over the
state (either by elections or by insurrection). Anarchists argued that for socialists to
set up their own state (a bureaucratic-military machine to rule over society) would result
in state capitalism and a new, bureaucratic, ruling class. (For further discussion of the
differences between anarchism and Maoism, see Price 2007.)
But at the very end, Liu summarizes his view, "Revolutionaries must oppose the
establishment of a state that will direct and reproduce exploitation, and instead
encourage forms of mass, federated, armed, and directly democratic social organization.
There is no alternative to the anarchist thesis: the state must be smashed." (128) This is
indeed the lesson of Maoism.
References
Daum, Walter (1990). The Life and Death of Stalinism: A Resurrection of Marxist Theory.
NY: Socialist Voice.
Hobson, Christopher Z., & Tabor, Ronald D. (1988). Trotskyism and the Dilemma of
Socialism. NY/Westport CT: Greenwood Press.
Liu, Elliot (2016). Maoism and the Chinese Revolution; A Critical Introduction. Oakland
CA: PM Press; thoughtcrime.ink
Price, Wayne (2007). "A Maoist Attack on Anarchism; An Anarchist Response to Bob Avakian."
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-a-maoist-attack-on-anarchism
Price, Wayne (2017). "What is Libertarian Socialism? An Anarchist-Marxist Dialogue: A
Review of A. Prichard, R. Kinna, S. Pinta, & D. Berry (eds.). Libertarian Socialism;
Politics in Black and Red".
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30411?search_text=wayne+Price
*written for www.Anarkismo.net
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31495
------------------------------
Message: 8
We now have a more specific time and place for our meeting point. We will be meeting at
10:30am at Piccadilly Circus, by the fountain. It might be a hot day so bring water for
yourself and, if possible, for others. If you want to meet up with us keep an eye out for
Anarchist Federation banners or flags.
https://aflondon.wordpress.com/2019/07/31/update-on-3rd-of-august-anti-fascist-mobilisation/
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten