Dan R an anarchist comrade from Nottingham on his Naked Lunch blog has made a lengthy contribution on the Left and Iraq which I promised to respond to but my response got a bit long to put as a comment to his blog. But both Dan and I agree that we would welcome other's contribution either here or there.
Dan's article was a reply to my earlier comment on his article on the Joy of Sects
My comment intended to argue against 3 issues raised by Dan
- Against the possible implication in his article that the initiative, that Tom U and I were involved in, was a sect intervention and not a genuine attempt to organise, on a non-sectarian basis those who wanted to contribute to a re-organisation of the anti-war movement.
- Against his conclusion about staying 'independent' which read, to me at least, that people should avoid battles that are being conducted between the SWP and those that oppose them and their leadership of StW.
- Against the argument, raised by both Dan and Rich (writing as disillusionedKid) that the AWL has been 'muddled' on the issues presumably of war, terror and political Islam when the facts show that of all sections on the left, organised or unorganized, the AWL has been the least muddled
On the first… Tom and I are both in the AWL. We were both involved in drafting the particular statement on Iran that kicked off this discussion. But the AWL is not a sect and the AWL likes to think we have a good history of building and attempting to initiate genuine united fronts. And that is what we were doing with this statement.
There are similar statements being drawn up elsewhere. I hope we should be able to pull them into something coherent and national in the near future.
Dan and Rich signed the statement, nevertheless Dan writes 'I would advise others who have received the statement to sign or not sign on a similar,' (i.e. individual) 'basis, not on the basis of sectarian politics’. I may be oversensitive here but isn’t there an implication here that Tom and I might perhaps be requesting people to sign 'on a sectarian basis'? Maybe not, but I can’t help feeling that throughout Dan's article there is an implication that the AWL, like the SWP, is a sect, that puts sectarian objectives in front of more important and wider political objectives.
On the second…Dan says ‘pete's criticism seems to suggest that he thinks i'm a fan of the SWP(!).'Not at all, Dan. Dan like many who have been involved in StW has an unabashed hostility to the SWP. My argument with Dan is that the SWP and their leadership of StW have to be opposed by being organised! Not around some petty sect objective but around the aim of re-organising a new anti-war movement.
The whole reason about reciting the recent SWP (and StW) history was not to imply that Dan supported any of those positions. Rather I was referring to his suggestion that people should stay 'independent' and away from sects (does this include the AWL?). Many think that activities such as organising, setting up networks, meetings, formulating platforms that unite us etc. are what constitutes 'sect' activity. They are not. We need to be more organised.
I can remember in the 2 weeks after 9/11 we had local organisational meetings in Nottm, small but politically far wider than StW later was. There were Iraqi refugees there, there were people of an anarchist persuasion, and all of the left groups. The SWP’s refusal to argue against the Islamists around Bin Laden (and it took local SWPers a week to find out that actually was their line), or later against Saddam, was a minority view.
But the SWP took over the anti-war movement, locally and nationally. And they did so only partly because they were the biggest element. They were mainly able to take over because throughout the country they were organised and most of the rest were both muddled and disorganised. They didn’t want to believe what we in the AWL were telling them of the need to fight against the politics of the SWP and their organisational control of the anti-war movement that was soon to take off.
Both Dan and Rich have argued that the AWL defines itself negatively against the SWP. This is actually generally inaccurate historically. We took our position against political Islam before the SWP changed their position to be in favour of it. We opposed the 9/11 attack before the SWP supported it (as an attack on imperialism). We opposed Saddam before the SWP made their alliance with Galloway and a position of defense (or non-criticism) of Saddam.
Where I think there is a difference between Dan (and Rich) and the AWL is in our assessment of the importance of the SWP. Viz Rich’s statement on our 'obsession with ... "the SWP" Many, including those at the early anti-war meetings I mentioned above, also disagreed with us on this. They thought (and perhaps Dan and Rich think?) that the SWP will go away and that it’s wasting time arguing against them etc.
But what would be Dan's explanation for what has happened over the last 4 years?
- A movement that 3 years ago could draw 2 million onto the streets can now mobilise no more than 10-20,000 last week.
- The soft political Islamists of the Muslim Association of Britain (which 4 years ago no-one in Nottingham, including the SWP!, had ever heard of) have used the StW to launch themselves and now appear to have outgrown it. They are now a significant sectarian force within the Pakistani, Bengali and other communities in Britain.
Of course the war has fuelled the growth of political Islam in Britain. But is it really so far-fetched to have expected that the revulsion at the war could have brought people from those same communities into a secular, non-communalist anti-war movement?
I don’t believe that it is so far-fetched. Why didn’t it happen?
- Because the genuinely muddled left (not I stress the AWL) were dragged by the SWP into political excuses for political Islam. I think elsewhere in Dan's article he repeats some of the muddled thinking on 9/11 which I will touch on in my next blog bit
- Because coupled with that genuine muddle was a failure to recognise that even where you have clarity, if you don't organise, the more organised will defeat you. Which is why anarchist methods are not adequate for revolutionaries.
Part 2 - Why there was nothing anti-imperialist in the 9/11 attack
Comments
Comradely comments
There's a lot there, but for the timebeing I'll just respond to a few points briefly...
>>"But the AWL is not a sect."
I think there are a lot of people who would disagree. Including the dictionary apparently.
>>"Dan and Rich signed the statement, nevertheless Dan writes 'I would advise others who have received the statement to sign or not sign on a similar,' (i.e. individual) 'basis, not on the basis of sectarian politics’. I may be oversensitive here but isn’t there an implication here that Tom and I might perhaps be requesting people to sign 'on a sectarian basis'?"
No. That statement arises out of the context of Dan's original post as a response to comments by RL which argued against signing the statement because of the involvement of the AWL. Dan argued, as would I, that the statement should be signed (or not) on its own merit, rather than because of the involvement (or otherwise) of a particular organisation.
>>"But the SWP took over the anti-war movement, locally and nationally."
The SWP's effectiveness and influence is consistently overstated, not just by yourselves, but most of the left. Yeah, they outnumber any other group, but there were regularly more independents at StWC meetings in Nottingham than Swappies. On a national level, bear in mind that the chair of the StWC is from the CPB (who also lead CND). The multitude problems with the StWC can in my opinion be traced back not to a single organisation, but the basic problems underlying the ideology of a large chunk of the British left. The SWP may epitomise that, but to suggest that they are its primary - even only - cause is I think inaccurate.
>>"Both Dan and Rich have argued that the AWL defines itself negatively against the SWP. This is actually generally inaccurate historically."
That's as maybe, but read almost any piece of AWL writing on anything you're likely to come across some criticism of the SWP. This often appears in pieces which have absolutely nothing to do with the SWP (see e.g. here and here). It does begin to look an awful lot like an obsession. This isn't to say that people shouldn't criticise the SWP where they're wrong, but let's not pretend they're something they're not. Contrary to the image presented by the AWL, the SWP have only a few thousand active members and are active in relatively few locations. The average lefty organisation is more than capable of making stupid decisions without any involvement from the SWP.
>>"The soft political Islamists of the Muslim Association of Britain (which 4 years ago no-one in Nottingham, including the SWP!, had ever heard of) have used the StW to launch themselves and now appear to have outgrown it. They are now a significant sectarian force within the Pakistani, Bengali and other communities in Britain."
This may be true, but you present no evidence to back it up. This is a recurring problem with AWL criticisms of the MAB in my opinion (cf the claims about its links to the Muslim Brotherhood) and plays into the hands of those who accuse you of being Islamophobic. The same is true with regards to Galloway. Clearly he's a twat, but that doesn't mean that every stupid statement attributed to him is neccesarily true. Simply regurgitating every bad thing you hear about groups or individuals you disagree with only serves to undermine your credibility. (FYI, I don't take accept anything you say about Galloway without some corroboration anymore.)
(I'm also dubious about the term "political Islam", primarily because it's hard to imagine anybody talking about a comparable "political Christianity", but that's a whole other kettle of fish.)
>>"Because coupled with that genuine muddle was a failure to recognise that even where you have clarity, if you don't organise, the more organised will defeat you. Which is why anarchist methods are not adequate for revolutionaries."
Eh? What appears to be a criticism of the left's muddled position on the war suddenly transforms into an argument against "anarchist methods" - something you haven't mentioned at all before and make no effort to define. Are you implying anarchists aren't organised? Perhaps even that the the left has adopted "anarchist methods" (whatever they may be) bringing us to the current impasse?
For what it's worth, I happen to think that one of the biggest problems facing the left in this country 9and probably elsewhere) in fact stems from "Marxist methods," namely party lines. The idea that somebody is supposed to subscribe to every opinion of an organisation they are a member of is in my opinion deeply undemocratic and lies at the root of the sectarianism which makes British Marxists so amusing for lefty trainspotters like myself, but also renders them - and all to often organisations they are involved in - so completely useless.
http://disillusionedkid.blogspot.com
Comradely reply
Rich
In turn your dictionary definitions of sect aren't useful and probably are tongue in cheek. As you know in political discourse, a sect is a perjorative term implying a narrow factional agenda to the detriment of broader interests. In the left milieu it means pursuing narrow organisational, communal or religious objectives opposed to broader working class interests. If the AWL is a sect in those terms let's argue it out.
You say 'The SWP's effectiveness and influence is consistently overstated, not just by yourselves, but most of the left...The average lefty organisation is more than capable of making stupid decisions without any involvement from the SWP.'. Hang on, didn't I say in the very next bit that the SWP were able to take over 'only partly because they were the biggest element. They were mainly able to take over because throughout the country they were organised and most of the rest were both muddled and disorganised.'
My point is that people have avoid the confusion (more honestly the opportunism) that the rest of the left displayed.
It was almost amusing, if it wasn't so nauseating. to watch the CPB (and CND) adjust themselves to tail-ending the SWP in the months after 9/11. It was revolting to see some other sections of the left all try and imitate the accomodation to political Islam in order to be allowed into decision making circles within national StW.
Don't understand your point about 'no evidence to back it up'.
No evidence to back up MAB's relationship and the Muslim Brotherhood? Well that's been in the MAB paper!
No evidence to back up MAB's growth in influence? Well listen and watch the radio and TV, Rich. Tamimi, Anas al-Tikriti etc. How often did you see them on Newsnight or on thye Today programme before StW launched them?
Why do you seek to find excuses for Galloway? The quotation of Galloway whose veracity you question was taken from a pro-Galloway Algerian paper! Although it was not given on our website, it is here http://www.elkhabar.com/FrEn/lire.php?ida=20313. (I'm sure you would have got this link from me on the NottmStoptheWar list.) Why look for excuses for Galloway? When the SWP introduced Galloway as the left's man in parliament in 2001, it's exactly that attitude that played into their hands. Maybe he was complimenting the Iraqi people and not Saddam etc etc. Bullshit. The facts speak for themselves. If our accusations are wrong (and Galloway doesn't sue us, which he is actually very keen in doing) then tell us. Don;t put an exclusion zone around him.
If we are right. Then let's together try and rescue the anti-war movement from him and the people who keep him where he is as its figurehead.
As for Marxist methods or anarchist methods. Well that was a bit of a throwaway line on my part, I admit. Many marxists are less organised than many anarchists. And contemporary anarchism is very unlike anarchisms in the past. But your characterisation of marxist organisations as requiring members to 'subscribe to every opinion of an organisation they are a member of', whilst true of many organisations on the left, certainly isn't true of us. It also has no justification in the basic principles of marxism or Leninism for that matter. Read this website does it appear as if there is a ban on dissenting views?
But for me the key thing is whether people fight in a co-ordinated manner, democratically and openly, nationally as well as locally. And I think that many anarchists think that that is just not important. That it is OK to do your own thing in your own area whilst the 'sects' fuck up things nationally. That I don't think is just not adequate to what has to be done.
Ni dieu, ni partis
>>...probably [...] tongue in cheek.
Finally, somebody other than Dan who understands my debating style!
>>Don't understand your point about 'no evidence to back it up'.
My point is that you make assertions about the MAB and Galloway based on little or no evidence. Your argument about the growing influence of the MAB is well taken (although I'm still intrigued to discover what their grassroots support in the "Muslim community" is really like - I never encountered them in or around Nottingham).
Linking to El Khabar doesn't count as evidence unless you can actually speak Arabic (I certainly can't). This is crucial, because in that case Galloway is apparently a result of an inaccurate translation (something even the Times has had to concede). Without making any effort to check the reliability of the quotation it has been repeated by various critics because it happens to fit their worldview.
I'm not interested in putting an "exclusion zone" around Galloway (at least not in the sense you are suggesting), but conversely I don't think we should just repeat every crazy accusation against him. In fact, doing so will ultimately undermine our credibility. Like the StWC's ridiculous claims about numbers on demonstrations it may seem like a small "white lie," but if you cry "wolf" enough times Galloway will eat all our sheep (if you see what I mean).
I don't know if you ever visit Harry's Place (I don't particularly recommend it), but they have a real obsession with Galloway which reached ridiculous levels during his appearance on Celebrity Big Bollocks. To see how I would go about fisking Gorgeous, check out this post.
http://disillusionedkid.blogspot.com
If Galloway being misquoted it is by the El Khabar not me
Sorry if the link didn't work. I am aware that an allegation of mistranslation has been made but the fault obviously lies with the El Khabar, again not enemies as far as I can see, of Galloway and they write (in English) here
Actual text of this article
Danish cartoons are detrimental to Islam and Muslims and I highly condemn them
In an interview to El Khabar, former British Labour Party MP, George Galloway considered the Arab Magreb countries as being under US umbrella. He indicated that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sought, through his last visit to Arab Magreb countries, to convince them to sent forces to Iraq to save America from the sticky wicket in which they put themselves in, there.
Galloway asked president Bouteflika not to accept the American offer because the Algerian people has historical relations with Iraqi people... in case Bouteflika accepted the US proposal, Bouteflika would have committing its biggest mistake in his life, he said.
The speaker affirmed he was not surprised by the cartoons the Danish newspaper published... for the west has started a series of attacks against Islam, some years ago.
They began by insult, then military occupation and now they are offending the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH). This incident is more serious than the 9/11 attacks on the US and those of London. (My emphasis PR)
Muslims so have the right to express their anger and to defend themselves and their religion, George Galloway affirms adding that Denmark is the only country in Europe, and in the world, where there is still racism. Emigration system in that country is the worst, besides, there is no single mosque in Denmark, he notes.
George Galloway said the controversial cartoons are detrimental to prophet Mohamed (PBUH), and considered a real insult against Islam and Muslims that he highly condemned, pointing out that the west seeks to take hold of Muslim's oil, whatever the price.'
I don't take Harry's place as a reliable source btw but neither do I take Galloway or his mates as honest. I (and the AWL) do our own research.
Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
"Muslims so have the right to express their anger and to defend themselves and their religion, George Galloway affirms adding that Denmark is the only country in Europe, and in the world, where there is still racism."
Eh? Think about they way Galloway works. Do you really think he'd say that? There's clearly something fishy about this (and the English generally is pretty shaky). If you can find someone who can back-up the translation (I'm sure there must be somebody in Nottingham who speaks Arabic) fine, but until then bandying it around with all the question marks attached to it does us no favours.
the Disillusioned kid
What? What? What?
Rich, I don't know what you're trying to say. I do know you keep shifting your ground.
First, there are unscrupulous anti-Galloway merchants at Harry's Place who we shouldn't believe. OK then, I show that is not the source we are using, so then you say they are probably bad translators (though friends of Galloway?). And what evidence do you have that it's a bad translation - because you 'don't think he'd really say that'.
Well, do you think that a Labour MP would 'salute' a mass murdering scumbag like Saddam? I know my own reaction when I heard it happen back then - I disbelieved it. But as we all know now it was true, although the left continues to lie to itself about it even now.
Don't you expect Galloway's speeches to right wing Arab and Islamic nationalists friends tend to be a little different to the ones to the screamingly-naive SWP audiences.
But don't avoid the issue. Shouldn't any self-respecting radical want to get Galloway dumped by the left? Is there any individual who has done more damage to the credibility of the anti-war left than Galloway? It is not the symptom of an obsession to say this.
OK, bandying around inaccurate criticisms of Galloway will help him and not discredit him. But on the other hand every time we have released well-researched factual information on Galloway for the last 12 years, we have been faced by others on the 'alliances are more important than principles' left saying 'it can't be true, we won't believe it'. They have cried 'wolf' too many times for me to give them any credence.
re: the left and iraq
hi pete
glad to see i still count as a comrade, even if the debate seems to have become a little more heated ;)
you debate three main points. firstly:
"Against the possible implication in his [my] article that the initiative, that Tom U and I were involved in, was a sect intervention and not a genuine attempt to organise, on a non-sectarian basis those who wanted to contribute to a re-organisation of the anti-war movement."
easy - as rich has already pointed out, my use of the word sect was directed at certain maoist comrades and their politics!
"Against his conclusion about staying 'independent' which read, to me at least, that people should avoid battles that are being conducted between the SWP and those that oppose them and their leadership of StW."
well, i stand by that. like rich i think the SWP are a joke, albeit a particularly bad one. whilst it is necessary to dissuade people from getting swept along by their political machine, my own experience is that independent organising is the best way of doing this.
you add:
"Many think that activities such as organising, setting up networks, meetings, formulating platforms that unite us etc. are what constitutes 'sect' activity. They are not. We need to be more organised."
pete, whilst i am no one to talk having launched into this debate with at best a skeleton view (and indeed some second hand slander) of the AWL (which we seem to be correcting now), but at this point i'd advise you to take a look at some of the things that me and rich have been involved in over the past few years. as part of organisations like the student peace movement, we have been doing exactly the kind of organising that you are describing here. this year i have been making some particular efforts to build bridges with some of the local groups, including supporting the no sweat meeting, and inviting some local AWL members to speak at the peace conference. too bad, you haven't been interested in us before! that brings me on to this:
"Because coupled with that genuine muddle was a failure to recognise that even where you have clarity, if you don't organise, the more organised will defeat you. Which is why anarchist methods are not adequate for revolutionaries."
i'm sorry pete, but this is where we diverge. my experience of 'organising' has actually led me to the conclusion that it is indeed adequate for 'revolutionaries' of the kind who like to adminstrate the rest of us. independence and freedom from party lines and management structures are essential for any revolution in genuine freedom and subjective richness. this is precisely the reason that, in my experience, the kids of today are far more likely to be donning a balaclava and ripping up gm crops than selling papers in a donkey jacket. who wants to be a footsoldier waiting for the grand day out of the revolution, when they can go out on their own initiative and throw a spanner in the works? in my opinion, the way to remain an effective opposition to the state and capitalism, is to keep inventing new methods of attacking them. as the old methods of protest are increasingly cracked down upon and surveilled, they become increasingly ineffective. we need to be inventive and embrace new methods of organisation, not hierarchical and stale.
Ahem...
"...some second hand slander"
*coughs*
the Disillusioned kid
Heat is good
I don't think we should be bothered about the heat. I'd rather heatedly argue with comrades than have the silly, 'I refuse to talk with you, read your arguments' etc etc. that you see so much on the left. So argue on...
What you say about 'who wants to be a footsoldier waiting for the grand day out of the revolution, when they can go out on their own initiative and throw a spanner in the works' is interesting. Also 'the old methods of protest are increasingly cracked down upon and surveilled, they become increasingly ineffective. we need to be inventive and embrace new methods of organisation'.
There are new forms of protest that we 'old lefties' need to learn from, I acknowledge that. But I wonder at the same time whether the new 'anarchist'/ anti-capitalist movement has a clear enough idea of how it combines protest with achieving real change and more importantly building an even stronger movement. At some stage protests need to move forward to achieve concrete achievements otherwise movements get demoralised and disperse. I'm not sure how it expects to replace capitalism. OK, we shouldn't be demanding of people that 'until you know where you're going, don't move'. But knowing where you're going is reassuring to anyone you want to take with you!
I'm not sure increased surveillance is so much the reason for the 'embracing of new methods of struggle'. What worries me about the 'new' anti-capitalist movement is that it has been borne in a period of defeat. It has derived some new methods of struggle because of that, which is fine, but it also seems to have given up on certain things. It is spontaneist and rejects anything other than local or temporary organisation. The result is that it leaves the territory of co-ordinated national organisation to others less principled (which, as in StW, is unfortunate), which is where I came in.
real change
you wrote I wonder at the same time whether the new 'anarchist'/ anti-capitalist movement has a clear enough idea of how it combines protest with achieving real change and more importantly building an even stronger movement. firstly, what is "real change" - it sounds a highly subjective term to me. if you're talking about social revolution, i think the anarchist and socialist perspectives are very different. most of the anarchists i know see it as occurring via a gradual process, of building the new society within the shell of the old, rather than a sweeping to power of some new party or organisation. as such real change is effected at the levels of individuals and communities rejecting statist and capitalist institutions in favour of mutual aid and personal autonomy. in a practical sense this change occurs through the emergence of autonomous social centres (such as the sumac and asbo in nottingham), local grassroots campaigns, independent of party interference, through a general encouragement of an environment ripe for sabotage of the system and support for those escaping it. these are some of my own ideas and experiences, but the important aspect is that there is no blueprint. ideas and projects must adapt and evolve according to the will of those involved in them.
you say that you don't think that the anarchist "movement" knows where it's going, but that's because it does not attempt to be a movement, which is why there are many different, sometimes conflicting positions, within the 'ranks' of those calling themselves anarchists. that doesn't mean that solidarity and cooperation doesn't occur between anarchists, merely that we try to avoid coercive and bureaucratic hierarchies.
finally, of the anti-capitalist movement (which you seem to see as synonymous with anarchism, although i'm not sure that's strictly correct) you write It is spontaneist and rejects anything other than local or temporary organisation. The result is that it leaves the territory of co-ordinated national organisation to others less principled (which, as in StW, is unfortunate), which is where I came in. firstly, not all anarchists reject anything except local and temporary organisation. the anarchist federation, for example, are a permanent nationwide organisation (not that i'm too keen on them). likewise, solidarity federation, the anarchosyndicalists, are UK-wide in their organisation. these are the strands of anarchism that resemble traditional socialist methodologies more closely than new post-left anarchist tendencies. however, the anarchist rejection of centralisation is a rejection of precisely the kind of organisational methods that give huge amounts of power to idiots like the SWP. hierarchical structures are necessarily antidemocratic and concentrating power in any kind of steering committee or central organising council will always mean taking that power away from individual members of the organisation. maintaining an organisation like stop the war necessarily entails vast amounts of bureaucracy and hierarchy. as a not particularly apt comparison, the dissent! network that organised on nonhierarchical lines around the g8 summit in scotland was more effective, efficient, and democratic than stop the war has ever been, in my experience. the mobilisation was largely conducted at local level, as are stop the war's incidentally, and this did not reduce its effectiveness. i don't suggest that it was perfect, i'm sure there are plenty of aspects of the process that can be improved on and further democratised. however, this kind of organisational model seems more attractive to me than anything the hierarchical left has to offer.
We need hierarchies - but democratic ones
OK Dan, I have left ambiguous what 'real change' is. But what I meant, I think, is confirmed by what you say. Effective change is identified by you as being at an individual or community level. The 'real change' I mean, whilst having a profound effect in working class individual and community confidence and activity, requires a level of organisation, which I think you take to be hierarchical and consequently, in your view, dictatorial and undemocratic.
In France now, we need people not only to take to the streets but to challenge the unions to increase their direct democratic accountability or, if and when it is possible or necessary, to have other organisational structures. The actions of the French government needs to be answered with a co-ordinated challenge to government, or else it will be exploited by factions within the ruling class and the CPE may be knocked back, but only to be replaced by another version of it down the road.
The pensions strike yesterday came about through political work within the hierarchical and yes, bureaucratic, unions. Organisations need active democracy (not the manipulations of postal ballots and surveys). At times they need accountable decision-making bodies i.e. a hierarchy, but we have to fight for that hierarchy to be as democratic and accountable as we can get.
My union is in the middle of a dispute after an initial strike. How would you propose we take decisions about how we go ahead? Agitate amongst the members and students we 'service'. But we need co-ordinated national tactics. They will be discussed at an emergency conference i.e. a (reasonably) democratic, recallable and democratic hierarchy.
These actions are 'real' in that they organise and involve tens and hundreds of thousands of people in collective action, developing their confidence, organisation and class consciousness. Both of these UK disputes, as well as the major one in France, hugely depend on how they are led (or misled).
I fear the philosophy you describe would avoid any engagement with such actions or any proposals to democratise the decision making processes in them because they involve engagement in, and making proposals about, the hierarchical structures you wish to avoid. Although I know from the discussions we have about trade unionism that you see their important function, it is just that they don't really fit into your philosophy.
Unaccountable, undemocratic hierarchies should be fought against. We can't say 'no to hierarchy, no to decisions!' Accountable, democratic and yes, authoritative, leaderships have to be fought for and built.
Of course the 'democratic' element is the one that is typically ignored by much of the so-called left, today.
I know you will jump on 'authoritative'. But I will wait til you do.
Hierachy shmierachy
I don't really understand your argument. For sure, unions are hierachical organisations which at the same are engaged in fighting the class war. There's nothing inevitable about this, however. The huge influence of the CNT (which wasn't without it's flaws) at the height of the Spanish Civil War demonstrates that there are alternative ways of organising.
Knowing Dan I doubt he'd advocate ignoring hierachical unions anymore than he'd advocate ignoring the hierachical structures of the "official" anti-war movement (the StWC et al). Instead the important thing (I'm putting words in his mouth now) is to engage with what we have in lieu of anything else, but to do so critically while seeking to build alternative anarchist structures where possible. This is certainly what I advocate (despite my criticisms of unions I was on the picket line yesterday and doubtless will be again in a month or so).
the Disillusioned kid
For the record
Yes, I know Dan and you do not advocate practically ignoring unions or national organisations That was meant to be clear in what I wrote, maybe it should have been clearer.
My argument is with Dan's, and your's, political philosophy. Not sure what you mean about 'anarchist structures'. But I think it is fair to say that you consider changing, or building, national organisations whether they are unions or campaigns, as a very low priority. And I think the position you take about StW confirms that.
But my starting point was also refuting the argument that we are 'muddled'. I think that we can now lay that one to rest, can we?
And perhaps talk (off board) about what we are going to do about Iran/Iraq solidarity, building up TU struggles, solidarity with the dstruggle in France etc. Be in touch.
we only think we need hierarchies
i agree with much of what you say about the struggles that are currently ongoing. however, you haven't made any case for hierarchical organisation. we can agree on common objectives in our struggles without needing a leadership to articulate these on our behalf. i also disagree with the idea that we need to constantly petition the state for concessions. we should be refusing to submit to its authority if we truly disbelieve in it. i think that we need to be critical of our engagement with unions as well, as they have often acted as a safety valve for the bosses, and have mediated concessionary (and, hence, reformist) change.
We can't say 'no to hierarchy, no to decisions!'
i'm not suggesting that we do. i'm suggesting we adopt nonhierarchical decision making processes. you argue that hierarchical organisation is necessary but you haven't produced any evidence for it. i believe that this idea is one of many instilled in us by authoritarian social relations.
Evidence is there
I think I did give evidence...with the union battles I mentioned.
Struggles require a lead to be given (e.g. calling a national strike day or other action). Local actions can often be agreed by open, all inclusive meetings. But how do you call national action?
Of course full information should be provided for everyone concerned and there are increasing opportunities for that. But some delegate structure is inevitable, obviously as democratic as possible etc. And majority strike decisions have to be defended against minorities who would want to scab etc.
We should fight to ensure these decision-making structures are democratic, fight for accountability, recallability, full information and involvement of members etc. But don't they remain hierarchical (at least in the instant of their decision), authoritative structures? You will find on this site frequent expositions of how union national decision-making structures need to be changed see these.
Be pleased to hear any considered anarchist alternatives to organising such class actions but I believe that such ideas are 'instilled in us by' unthought-through reaction to 'authoritarian social relations'.
A Few Thoughts
Disillusioned Kid wrote,
“(I'm also dubious about the term "political Islam", primarily because it's hard to imagine anybody talking about a comparable "political Christianity", but that's a whole other kettle of fish.)”
Really? I think the term Christian Right predates any discussions of Political Islam by at least several decades. The last US presidential election was full of stories about the tactic used by Karl Rove in mobilising the forces of the Christian Right to vote for Bush for instance. Then there is the role played by the Christian Right in the recent laws passed against abortion, not to mention their direct action attacks on clinics and doctors.
“Eh? What appears to be a criticism of the left's muddled position on the war suddenly transforms into an argument against "anarchist methods" - something you haven't mentioned at all before and make no effort to define. Are you implying anarchists aren't organised? Perhaps even that the the left has adopted "anarchist methods" (whatever they may be) bringing us to the current impasse?”
I think in some senses the Left has adopted anarchist methods. Going back to the 1980’s there was a reaction against Leninism, and the whole personal is political nonsense, together with a whole series of muddled ideas that came from within the ranks of petit-bourgeois feminism that decried the idea of organisation, objected to having Chairs of meetings etc. The examples are many of how those who, however committed and even however clear in their ideas, were unorganised ended up being outmanoeuvred and worse by those that were.
“For what it's worth, I happen to think that one of the biggest problems facing the left in this country 9and probably elsewhere) in fact stems from "Marxist methods," namely party lines. The idea that somebody is supposed to subscribe to every opinion of an organisation they are a member of is in my opinion deeply undemocratic and lies at the root of the sectarianism which makes British Marxists so amusing for lefty trainspotters like myself, but also renders them - and all to often organisations they are involved in - so completely useless.”
As someone who now rejects the Leninist concept of the revolutionary party I have some sympathy with your view. However, there is a big difference between rejecting Lenin’s idea of a relatively small revolutionary party in favour of a mass workers party as I do, and then extending that to the idea that once democratic decisions have been made everyone can simply do whatever they want anyway. If members of a trade union vote to strike they expect all members of the union to follow the decision, and those that don’t are scabs. A workers party is no different. That doesn’t mean that minorities, however small shouldn’t continue to argue their case, and try to win a majority. The divergence of views on this website can hardly be evidence that the AWL silences minority views can it?
Stempswooddan wrote,
“i'm sorry pete, but this is where we diverge. my experience of 'organising' has actually led me to the conclusion that it is indeed adequate for 'revolutionaries' of the kind who like to adminstrate the rest of us. independence and freedom from party lines and management structures are essential for any revolution in genuine freedom and subjective richness. this is precisely the reason that, in my experience, the kids of today are far more likely to be donning a balaclava and ripping up gm crops than selling papers in a donkey jacket. who wants to be a footsoldier waiting for the grand day out of the revolution, when they can go out on their own initiative and throw a spanner in the works? in my opinion, the way to remain an effective opposition to the state and capitalism, is to keep inventing new methods of attacking them. as the old methods of protest are increasingly cracked down upon and surveilled, they become increasingly ineffective. we need to be inventive and embrace new methods of organisation, not hierarchical and stale.”
But donning a balaclava and engaging in some mindless vandalism isn’t anything new. The Luddites did it to not very much effect 200 years ago, and demoralised, disorganised individuals have engaged in similar pointless acts ever since. The whole point about working class action is that it challenges the individualistic ideology of capitalism by its opposite collective organised action. Why? Capitalists don’t need to act collectively because they already have wealth and power and the means to defeat workers. The only power workers have is precisely their collective strength as Shelley put it the fact that “We are many, they are few”. Even so the capitalists themselves when the chips are down abrogate their individualism and engage in collective class action. To think that workers can defeat that power, let alone the added power of the permanent state machine without themselves acting as a disciplined army is to demonstrate naivety in the extreme. Its to be a working class General Haig, continually sending waves of brave workers over the top trying out some new tactic that turns out to be just another stupid adventure.
“if you're talking about social revolution, i think the anarchist and socialist perspectives are very different. most of the anarchists i know see it as occurring via a gradual process, of building the new society within the shell of the old, rather than a sweeping to power of some new party or organisation. as such real change is effected at the levels of individuals and communities rejecting statist and capitalist institutions in favour of mutual aid and personal autonomy. in a practical sense this change occurs through the emergence of autonomous social centres (such as the sumac and asbo in nottingham), local grassroots campaigns, independent of party interference, through a general encouragement of an environment ripe for sabotage of the system and support for those escaping it.”
I agree with some of your points here. We should indeed, in my opinion, place more emphasis on building the new society within the womb of the old. We should reject statist conceptions both in terms of relying on the bourgeois state by placing demands on it, and instead focus more on independent working class action and self reliance – in the context of collective rather than individual self reliance. But I think you idea that this can be done on some kind of small scale ad hoc, localised basis is utopian. Working class communities can organise themselves for self-management – though in practice such organisation will only come about if someone almost inevitably from an organisation leads it – but such organisation will ultimately dissolve again unless it is located within a wider context. It requires links to be built with other such communities, links with local Trade Unions and political organisations, it requires demands to be put on local Councils for financial support – thought hat shouldn’t stop things from being done if its not forthcoming. But when you talk about people in such communities etc. “escaping” the system that is naïve. Rather like the Spanish Inquisition no one escapes it. Such self-organised working class communities, or workers co-operatives do not escape capitalism as long as capitalism exists and dominates, they merely demonstrate an alternative, and possibly win some space within capitalism, but escape, no. Moreover, I think your idea of sabotaging capitalism is also misguided. Sabotage for what end? To be honest I quite enjoy many of the things that capitalism brings. I enjoy the much better house I live in now compared to that I grew up in etc. Why would I want to sabotage that? If sabotage merely means throwing a spoke in the wheel making capitalism work less efficiently than it might then quite honestly I’m not interested, and I doubt many ordinary workers are either. What I am interested in, and what is needed in order to convince the majority of workers to reject capitalism is not sabotage, not a broken capitalism, but a replacement of it with something better.
If that something better can be prefigured within the existing society, if that can itself be used as a lever for further change all the better, but that won’t come about either without some structure and organisation.
“however, the anarchist rejection of centralisation is a rejection of precisely the kind of organisational methods that give huge amounts of power to idiots like the SWP.”
Or that allow a small number of organised idiots to dominate a more numerous “rational” but atomised mass.
“the dissent! network that organised on nonhierarchical lines around the g8 summit in scotland was more effective, efficient, and democratic than stop the war has ever been, in my experience. the mobilisation was largely conducted at local level, as are stop the war's incidentally, and this did not reduce its effectiveness.”
If your idea of effectiveness is just getting a load of people to a demonstration then maybe. But that comes back to Pete’s point. Having got a load of people to the demo, what then? Smash a few windows, a bit of sabotage of the system etc., but what about something positive. Instead of just seeing the point of mobilisation being to break something, to sabotage something, what about actually building something better in its place.
Arthur Bough
a few more thoughts
Arthur Bough wrote:
Moreover, I think your idea of sabotaging capitalism is also misguided. Sabotage for what end? To be honest I quite enjoy many of the things that capitalism brings. I enjoy the much better house I live in now compared to that I grew up in etc. Why would I want to sabotage that?
i don't know you arthur, but that sounds suspiciously like someone who's been bought out by system. surely you don't think your nice house and better economic conditions came from out of nowhere? the global capitalist system can pacify the workers of rich countries with profits appropriated from elsewhere in the world, but that doesn't make us free. i suggest that we sabotage this system for the end of making capitalism unworkable in order that we might get rid of it. i think the more time we dwell on how nice our houses are, the less time and fervour we have for revolutionary activity.
If sabotage merely means throwing a spoke in the wheel making capitalism work less efficiently than it might then quite honestly I’m not interested, and I doubt many ordinary workers are either. What I am interested in, and what is needed in order to convince the majority of workers to reject capitalism is not sabotage, not a broken capitalism, but a replacement of it with something better.
i'm afraid i think you're being naive and utopian here. people are endlessly suggesting that "all we need is to show a better alternative to capitalism and the masses will rise up" kind of line, but it doesn't cut it. the real question should be, why, when our current system ruthlessly exploits so many people, are there not more people rising up? the answer lies in the conditioning we all receive from an early age that leads us to accept authority and the status quo. after all, look how nice a house you have now. what a benevolent guy your boss is. this is why i believe joining any "revolutionary" hierarchical organisation with leadership is inevitably just changing the master that you follow. we need to rid ourselves of these chains, as well as those of class.
If your idea of effectiveness is just getting a load of people to a demonstration then maybe. But that comes back to Pete’s point. Having got a load of people to the demo, what then? Smash a few windows, a bit of sabotage of the system etc., but what about something positive. Instead of just seeing the point of mobilisation being to break something, to sabotage something, what about actually building something better in its place.
as someone who was on the g8 mobilisation i can tell you that it was considerably more than just smashing a few windows. of course that was what the capitalist statist media slavishly focused on, but for many of those who were there the most inspiring aspect of what went on was that an autonomous nonhierarchical space was created for the duration of the summit, from which consensus decisions allowed us to act in a manner that massively disrupted the functioning of global capitalism's big day out. the ecocamp at stirling was an inspiring example of how noncoercive social relations could happen, and resist the repression that was sent against them. of course you didn't see that on the bbc, but why would you expect to?
quite frankly your arguments are full of the smearing of direct action that i would expect to hear from the likes of the mainstream media, not from a radical. there is nothing "pointless" about most direct actions. they usually have clear objectives in mind. to be honest, why should there be a moral panic just because burger king lost a few windows (which incidentally was a tiny sideshow on what actually happened at the g8)? this was something that came out of the frustration of being kettled by riot police. the same group later arrived at and successfully blockaded a major motorway access to the g8 conference, part of a coordinated blockade of the summit that left huge numbers of delegates and press unable to take part in the charade. i think that was a worthwhile action to take, and am not too sad to see a multinational burger chain get ceremonially trashed in the process.
Reply To Stempswooddan
“don't know you arthur, but that sounds suspiciously like someone who's been bought out by system. surely you don't think your nice house and better economic conditions came from out of nowhere? the global capitalist system can pacify the workers of rich countries with profits appropriated from elsewhere in the world, but that doesn't make us free.”
I think as far as Britain is concerned nowadays very little of the wealth comes from profits appropriated from elsewhere in the world. That sounds to me rather like a very muddled economic theory of where profits come from. In addition even were it an indication of being bought out by the system, which it isn’t, it would be no less a problem for you, because unfortunately the vast majority of workers must also then be similarly bought out by the system. I see little indication that the vast majority of workers wish to give up their current standard of living and don a hairshirt in order to be “free” whatever that means. And unless the majority of workers want to replace the current system with something better, then what are you going to do are you going to rely on a minority of people changing society, and then forceeveryone else to be free. I can point you in the direction of people who take that perspective of freedom to its ultimate, and arrive at that conclusion. The Libertarians believe in the idea of a benevolent despot in order to ensure that such “freedom” is all pervasive. But, in doing so they see capitalism as the foundation on which that freedom is founded. I am sure that you would want to distance yourself from their vision of an Anarchist or Minarchist society, but in reality there is nothing I have seen in what you have written that particularly distinguishes you from them, and indeed nothing specifically that makes some form of capitalist market economy incompatible with your ideas.
“i suggest that we sabotage this system for the end of making capitalism unworkable in order that we might get rid of it. i think the more time we dwell on how nice our houses are, the less time and fervour we have for revolutionary activity.”
And I suggest to you that a) you are unlikely to get many workers to go along with that idea because its not in their interests to do so, b) the main people who would suffer from capitalism working less efficiently would be ordinary working people, and c) the most likely beneficiaries of such disorder would in fact be the fascists.
“i'm afraid i think you're being naive and utopian here. people are endlessly suggesting that "all we need is to show a better alternative to capitalism and the masses will rise up" kind of line, but it doesn't cut it. the real question should be, why, when our current system ruthlessly exploits so many people, are there not more people rising up?”
But at times in the past when people did show a better alternative to capitalism, and were organised enough to go out and argue for that alternative not only did workers rise up, for example as they did in the Paris Commune, but they also joined Marxists Parties in their millions, they undertook the Russian revolution, the German Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution and so on. The real question is then why did the form mass Marxist parties then, and rise up then, but not now. The reasons are many and varied. The main reason is the fact that not only are those able to put forward the view of a better alternative few in number, but because the alternative view is muddied by versions stemming from reformism and Stalinism, by those that having given up on building an alternative instead rely on the forces of others such as Political Islam to fight their battles for them vicariously. There are other reasons. Contrary, to the idea you put forward of the best thing being some form of collapse most history shows that workers do best, are most militant in periods of rising prosperity. In Europe you can think back to the revolutions of 1848, the Russian revolution of 1917 came at the end of a 25 year Kondratieff upswing, the militancy of the 1960’s and early 70’s also coincided with the end of another Kondratieff upswing beginning in 1949. For the last 25 years the world has been in a Kondratieff downswing, and so it is not surprising that this period coincides with a downturn in workers militancy. A new upswing of the K cycle has begun, and we see already new shoots of workers militancy in France and elsewhere. Hopefully, the demise of Stalinism or at least it heartland and financier together with the lessons learned during the downswing will put the workers movement in a better position to move forward over the next two decades than it was even during the 1960’s, but the precondition of that is organisations that act as memories of the class, that codify lessons, and enable workers to jump over lessons previously learned.
Put another way we could ask why despite the things you portray are so few people flocking to the banner of Anarchism, why are so few looking forward to a lower standard of living, and chaos and disorder arising from sabotaging the system? Not because of your answer,
“the answer lies in the conditioning we all receive from an early age that leads us to accept authority and the status quo.”
For if that was true then there is no hope for change at all. It is actually consonant with the elitism of Leninism which puts forward a similar idea as its justification for the revolutionary party. After all what other reason can there be for you or I not being conditioned in the same way as other workers other than the fact that we are in sense different from the majority of workers, that we are part of some elite resistant to that conditioning. In fact at a time when workers have more access to leisure and culture now than they have ever had, when the diffusion of ideas that counter the status quo have never been great, and easily accessible through the medium of the Internet (is that an element of capitalist production you want to sabotage too so that these discussions could not take place) there is the greatest possibility that workers can be freed from the ideas of capitalism. The problem is not that workers are brainwashed by these ideas, but simply that no one is putting forward a credible alternative, and when they look at the experience of Stalinism, and even of nationalised industry, they say no thanks. That is why I think we have to have new ideas, and new approaches, why I think there is room for prefiguring the new society under capitalism, by arguing for workers to have direct control over many aspects of their lives such as within their communities etc., but unless that is part of a bigger picture, unless it forms part of a wider strategy and struggle it will necessarily fail.
“after all, look how nice a house you have now. what a benevolent guy your boss is. this is why i believe joining any "revolutionary" hierarchical organisation with leadership is inevitably just changing the master that you follow. we need to rid ourselves of these chains, as well as those of class.”
But if that were true then the enjoyment of my nice house would have me sitting in my garden at the moment listening to some music, or reading Dickens rather than discussing replacing the system that has provided the nice house wouldn’t it? Nor did I say anything about the nature of my boss, and to be honest whether they are on an individual level naughty or nice really makes no difference to my class analysis of the society I want to replace.
“as someone who was on the g8 mobilisation i can tell you that it was considerably more than just smashing a few windows. of course that was what the capitalist statist media slavishly focused on, but for many of those who were there the most inspiring aspect of what went on was that an autonomous nonhierarchical space was created for the duration of the summit, from which consensus decisions allowed us to act in a manner that massively disrupted the functioning of global capitalism's big day out. the ecocamp at stirling was an inspiring example of how noncoercive social relations could happen, and resist the repression that was sent against them. of course you didn't see that on the bbc, but why would you expect to?”
And then everyone got on the bus having felt they had done their bit and went home. Meanwhile the day to day functioning of capitalism was changed not one bit.
“quite frankly your arguments are full of the smearing of direct action that i would expect to hear from the likes of the mainstream media, not from a radical. there is nothing "pointless" about most direct actions. they usually have clear objectives in mind. to be honest, why should there be a moral panic just because burger king lost a few windows (which incidentally was a tiny sideshow on what actually happened at the g8)? this was something that came out of the frustration of being kettled by riot police. the same group later arrived at and successfully blockaded a major motorway access to the g8 conference, part of a coordinated blockade of the summit that left huge numbers of delegates and press unable to take part in the charade. i think that was a worthwhile action to take, and am not too sad to see a multinational burger chain get ceremonially trashed in the process.”
Me neither, though had I been a single parent with a couple of screaming kids wanting to go for a burger I might have felt differently. I have no problem with direct action events, I’ve been on enough in my time, but the point is at the end of the day they achieve perhaps a lift in the spirits of those that take part, they express opposition to the status quo for all to see, and hopefully they stimulate people to think about the issues, and then to organise around a set of coherent ideas to really challenge whatever it is they were protesting. The trouble is your whole approach seems to virtually stop at the protest, it is dissociated from the more important part of what comes after. You seem totally focussed on what you are against, but with absolutely no concept of really what you are for, or how to move forward.
Arthur Bough
I think as far as Britain is
I think as far as Britain is concerned nowadays very little of the wealth comes from profits appropriated from elsewhere in the world. That sounds to me rather like a very muddled economic theory of where profits come from.
oh really? then explain why workers in the global south aren't parading around admiring their lovely new houses. economic conditions there seem to be getting progressively worse as, coincidentally, they get better here. of course, suggesting that there's any link would be heretical, but i'm starting to get suspicious.
btw - people who tell other people that their economic theories are muddled are usually tories in my experience.
In addition even were it an indication of being bought out by the system, which it isn’t, it would be no less a problem for you, because unfortunately the vast majority of workers must also then be similarly bought out by the system. I see little indication that the vast majority of workers wish to give up their current standard of living and don a hairshirt in order to be “free” whatever that means.
yes, and the vast majority of workers are not revolutionary, because mass conditioning is so strong. free for me means free from having to work for anyone. i think there's a strong inclination towards not working for bosses in many many people, but because there is such a strong "work ethic" in society (instilled by social conditioning) it becomes unacceptable to display this tendency. and so the bosses win.
And unless the majority of workers want to replace the current system with something better, then what are you going to do are you going to rely on a minority of people changing society, and then force everyone else to be free.
of course not. the whole point of anarchism is that there should be no coercion, unlike that found within the ranks of leftist parties.
I can point you in the direction of people who take that perspective of freedom to its ultimate, and arrive at that conclusion. The Libertarians believe in the idea of a benevolent despot in order to ensure that such “freedom” is all pervasive.
i don't know what you've been reading but this is bizarre in the extreme. please present some evidence for this, because it is something i have never come across. it is also not anarchist. it sounds more like hobbes' leviathan than anyhthing else, and that is liberal, not libertarian.
But, in doing so they see capitalism as the foundation on which that freedom is founded. I am sure that you would want to distance yourself from their vision of an Anarchist or Minarchist society, but in reality there is nothing I have seen in what you have written that particularly distinguishes you from them, and indeed nothing specifically that makes some form of capitalist market economy incompatible with your ideas.
hang on a minute. i've been continually repeating that i want to see the destruction of capitalism to be replaced with a non-coercive society, whilst you've been arguing for better conditions within a capitalist society, and you get to call me a capitalist? some interesting logic there. what do i propose instead of capitalist economics? a gift economy, based on mutual aid. what do you propose?
And I suggest to you that a) you are unlikely to get many workers to go along with that idea because its not in their interests to do so, b) the main people who would suffer from capitalism working less efficiently would be ordinary working people, and c) the most likely beneficiaries of such disorder would in fact be the fascists.
i disagree. sabotage is in the interests of all workers because it works against work itself. all true revolutionary tactics will strengthen the hand of arch-authoritarians like fascists, but that's no reason not to use them. if you want an example of marxists using these tactics take a look at the italian autonomists.
But at times in the past when people did show a better alternative to capitalism, and were organised enough to go out and argue for that alternative not only did workers rise up, for example as they did in the Paris Commune, but they also joined Marxists Parties in their millions, they undertook the Russian revolution, the German Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution and so on. The real question is then why did the form mass Marxist parties then, and rise up then, but not now.
i think it would be difficult to say that these uprisings occurred simply beacuse an alternative was shown. in many of these situations uprisings occurred because the alternative to rising up was so dreadful it overwhelmed alternative options. perhaps people are reluctant to join mass marxist parties now because they know what the effects of marxist ideology have been in russia, china, etc. you accuse libertarians of having an image of a benign dictator, but surely marxism is considerably more guilty on that front.
Put another way we could ask why despite the things you portray are so few people flocking to the banner of Anarchism, why are so few looking forward to a lower standard of living, and chaos and disorder arising from sabotaging the system? Not because of your answer...
For if that was true then there is no hope for change at all.
why not? there are always ways of breaking conditioning. it is often hard, but not impossible.
It is actually consonant with the elitism of Leninism which puts forward a similar idea as its justification for the revolutionary party. After all what other reason can there be for you or I not being conditioned in the same way as other workers other than the fact that we are in sense different from the majority of workers, that we are part of some elite resistant to that conditioning.
not at all. i think a perfect example of this conditioning is that you (and many others who oppose a politics of desire) constantly see threats and coercion in what we propose, whereas i see it is quite the opposite. i don't consider myself to be special for having been exposed to philosophies and viewpoints that have exposed authoritarian conditioning's mechanisms. i think that anyone is capable of realising these truths. i don't think that anyone can be forced to make these realisations, and i certainly wouldn't attempt to.
In fact at a time when workers have more access to leisure and culture now than they have ever had, when the diffusion of ideas that counter the status quo have never been great, and easily accessible through the medium of the Internet (is that an element of capitalist production you want to sabotage too so that these discussions could not take place) there is the greatest possibility that workers can be freed from the ideas of capitalism.
leisure and culture are capitalist economies in themselves. why should i have to spend the time that i'm not forced to work having more stolen from me in leisure and cultural goods?
i disagree with you. availability of information does not equate to uptake of information. why would anyone who's been taught to fear their freedom read about how to obtain it?
The problem is not that workers are brainwashed by these ideas, but simply that no one is putting forward a credible alternative, and when they look at the experience of Stalinism, and even of nationalised industry, they say no thanks.
or even the experience of being dehumanised by a leftist party or union. the psychosexual revolution must take place simultaneously with the sociopolitical revolution, because either alone is bound to fail.
Nor did I say anything about the nature of my boss, and to be honest whether they are on an individual level naughty or nice really makes no difference to my class analysis of the society I want to replace.
of course. but if your class analysis really does lead you to revolutionary thoughts as opposed to merely reformist ones, the quality of your house is irrelevant, because only the establishment of a classless society would be satisfactory. right?
And then everyone got on the bus having felt they had done their bit and went home. Meanwhile the day to day functioning of capitalism was changed not one bit.
that's funny because i could swear that nottingham dissent are still holding regular meetings and involving themselves in campaigns. obviously just a bit of false consciousness on my part. and if we're getting down to the schoolboy level of 'i changed capitalism more than you' i'd like to know what fine anti-capitalist activity it is that you're involved in and has attacked it far more effectively.
Me neither, though had I been a single parent with a couple of screaming kids wanting to go for a burger I might have felt differently.
surely a perfect opportunity for political education! no, sorry, you're right. business as usual is of the utmost importance.
I have no problem with direct action events, I’ve been on enough in my time, but the point is at the end of the day they achieve perhaps a lift in the spirits of those that take part, they express opposition to the status quo for all to see, and hopefully they stimulate people to think about the issues, and then to organise around a set of coherent ideas to really challenge whatever it is they were protesting.
and aren't these precisely the alternative modes of existence that you were previously arguing that the workers need to be exposed to?
The trouble is your whole approach seems to virtually stop at the protest, it is dissociated from the more important part of what comes after.
that's funny because i've seen huge campaigns built around direct action, and direct action revitalising areas of campaigning that have lain dormant for a while. give me some examples of these futile actions, and why you think that actions like strikes and demonstrations are any better.
You seem totally focussed on what you are against, but with absolutely no concept of really what you are for, or how to move forward.
arthur, i'm tired of repeating the same things over and over again. but i will, just one more time, as you seem totally unwilling to accept what i say.
i am for a classless society of freely interacting individuals who act upon their desires, not upon the reactive desires that are the product of a violent and authoritarian society. all institutions within this society should be organised by agreement between individuals, not by coercion. how we move towards this is through the exposure of authority for what it is, through continual nonconformity to it, and the development of alternative microsocieties based upon the principles outlined above.
Party till you puke
It looks like Dan's more than capable of defending your criticisms of what he wrote, so I'll stick to your disagreements with myself.
1) Political Islam vs. Christianity
What I like about your response is that it validates my point: nobody talks about "political Christianity." The Christian Right, sure; Christian Fundamentalism, absolutely; but not political Christianity. As such a rubric would neccesarily incorporate not just the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, but Martin Luther King, Bruce Kent and the liberation theologists, it should be obvious that the reason the term isn't used is because it would be patently be useless.
I would contend that political Islam is a similarly dubious term, which presents the unwarranted image of a homogenous, united movement. In reality, Sunni fundamentalists, hate their Shia counterparts more than they hate the Great Satan. Furthermore, the negative conotations applied to the term political Islam would seem to preclude even the possibility of a progressive interpretation of Islam, which sounds uncomfortably like the views of many on the far-right.
2) Anarchist methods.
Like Pete you seem to be criticising "anarchist methods" without making any effort to define them. Historically anarchist methodologies, strategies and tactics have been even more diverse than their ideologies. Second-hand caricatures do not a criticism make.
3) Following democratic decisions.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't generally follow democratic decisions (in practice this will always be their choice). My issue with Marxist parties is that one is expected to subscribe to a whole load of ideological baggage: analysis of the Soviet Union; appraisals of the situation in certain countries; opinions on the deviancies of competing parties etc. When you compare the differences between Lefty Party A and Party Left B they're usually minimal, yet the proponents of each organisation insist they are all important.
the Disillusioned kid
A Reply To Rick
“What I like about your response is that it validates my point: nobody talks about "political Christianity." The Christian Right, sure; Christian Fundamentalism, absolutely; but not political Christianity.”
I think you are splitting hairs. I see no real difference other than the use of the word Right rather than Political between referring to the “Christian Right” as reflecting a coherent set of political ideas that take as their starting point fundamentalist Christian religious principles, and Political Islam as similarly a set of political ideas and objectives taking as their starting point fundamentalist Islamic belief. As the articles in Solidarity recently showed in the Schactman debate socialists have often been at pains to criticise Christian belief, let alone the political current around the Christian Right. I think the first use of the term “clerical-fascist” in fact was coined to refer to the Catholic Right in Austria at the beginning of the twentieth century that organised against the rising workers movement demanding democracy, and which ultimately opened the door for Hitler.
“As such a rubric would neccesarily incorporate not just the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, but Martin Luther King, Bruce Kent and the liberation theologists, it should be obvious that the reason the term isn't used is because it would be patently be useless.”
But this proves the opposite of what you claim. “Christian Right” clearly does not encompass King or Kent, but nor does “Political Islam” encompass moderate Muslim opinion or leaders either. In criticising Political Islam we do not criticise Islam as a whole, and certainly not individual Muslims as such, anymore than in criticising the Christian Right we criticise Christianity as a whole, or individual Christians. We do criticise Islam and we do criticise Christianity but as religions not as political currents. We criticise them as militant atheists not as political opponents.
“Furthermore, the negative conotations applied to the term political Islam would seem to preclude even the possibility of a progressive interpretation of Islam, which sounds uncomfortably like the views of many on the far-right.”
I have I think stated clearly above that the term “Political Islam” does not refer to Islam as a whole, so that deals with the first part. I would, however, also take issue with the second part. Whilst, making a clear distinction between individual Muslims as individuals, and indeed, different trends within Islam, I reject the idea that there can be a progressive interpretation of Islam, any more than their can be a progressive interpretation of Christianity. All religion is reactionary. This or that opportunist may attempt to deal with their condition of political weakness by attempting to claim this or that piece of writing in this or that Holy Book written thousands of years ago by some charlatan or other supports their philosophy, but in the end such appeals are a diversion from the real task of getting workers to deal with the real material world, and their position within it. That does not mean support for totalitarian notions of suppressing religion, and certainly not support for the attempts of the Far Right to brand all Muslims as evil, but it does mean retaining a militant atheistic opposition to all religious dogmatism.
“Like Pete you seem to be criticising "anarchist methods" without making any effort to define them. Historically anarchist methodologies, strategies and tactics have been even more diverse than their ideologies. Second-hand caricatures do not a criticism make.”
Possibly, but they all have a common theme, and I think it is summed up by Dan in his posts. If we look at the events in which Anarchists had perhaps the most impact in modern times (this may be more modern for me than for you) the events of May 68 in France, we can see the weakness. There were a number of strands. On the one hand the CP which was the most powerful force within the workers movement played a wholly counter-revolutionary role, trying to hold back the workers, and acting as a brake on their independent activity. On the other hand were the various small Trotskyist and revolutionary socialist groups that tried to relate to the workers struggle, orientate to what was going on, and to try to give their struggle some form, some way forward, but they were too small to have any major effect. On the other hand the Anarchists did have considerable support particular within the ranks of the students, and one of the leaders Daniel Cohn-Bendit – Danny the Red – was an Anarchist – now a Green MEP. But if you read Cohn-Bendits book on the May events it is clear that he really had no idea how the movement could move forward. The Anarchists politics amounted to nothing more – and Anarcho-syndicalists such as the IS in the 60’s and 70’s had the same failing – than more militancy. The same approach can be seen in Dan’s writings. For him the goal is a bigger demonstration than the last one. At best where there is any politics it is some kind of nebulous well people will find some space and do their own thing, and everything will work out. But history shows it doesn’t.
And for all the militant “anti-capitalism” there is really nothing fundamentally “anti-capitalist” in any of this. It is really anti-global capitalism, anti-progressive large scale capitalism. There is nothing in it specifically that opposes capitalism per se, just that it favours some past, cut down, primitive capitalism based on small producers. The reality is that you could have as many small communes and co-operatives as you like, but without some form of organisation, without some democratic structure, without some kind of ideology on how such a society is to be organised and move forward the operation of such communes, and co-operatives could be governed by only one economic force, the economic force which requires no conscious human intervention, structure and organisation, and that force is the market. That is why the Anarchists political cousins the Libertarians defend such a vision of a capitalist Libertarian society, that it is the only type of society in which each individual can be free from being told to do by someone else – the reality of course is that this is only true if you have property, and the more property you have the more free you become.
“I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't generally follow democratic decisions (in practice this will always be their choice). My issue with Marxist parties is that one is expected to subscribe to a whole load of ideological baggage: analysis of the Soviet Union; appraisals of the situation in certain countries; opinions on the deviancies of competing parties etc. When you compare the differences between Lefty Party A and Party Left B they're usually minimal, yet the proponents of each organisation insist they are all important.”
I wouldn’t particularly disagree with you on that point, though I think your criticism is less true in relation to the AWL on this score than for other Marxist groups – and I am writing as someone who is not a member of the AWL, and who disagrees with their Leninist views on the revolutionary party, on their characterisation of the class nature of the Soviet Union, and on some aspects of their politics in relation to Iraq and elsewhere. I don’t think those criticism are true of Marx’s concept of the Workers’ Party or those of Engels which I have set out in other posts on the Board, or of the role of Marxists within those parties.
Arthur Bough
eh?
And for all the militant “anti-capitalism” there is really nothing fundamentally “anti-capitalist” in any of this. It is really anti-global capitalism, anti-progressive large scale capitalism. There is nothing in it specifically that opposes capitalism per se, just that it favours some past, cut down, primitive capitalism based on small producers. The reality is that you could have as many small communes and co-operatives as you like, but without some form of organisation, without some democratic structure, without some kind of ideology on how such a society is to be organised and move forward the operation of such communes, and co-operatives could be governed by only one economic force, the economic force which requires no conscious human intervention, structure and organisation, and that force is the market.
you have a very funny view of anarchism if you think this is what anarchists propose. here's a few terms you might want to look up: mutual aid, gift economy. far more radical than anything marx ever proposed.
That is why the Anarchists political cousins the Libertarians defend such a vision of a capitalist Libertarian society, that it is the only type of society in which each individual can be free from being told to do by someone else – the reality of course is that this is only true if you have property, and the more property you have the more free you become.
*sighs* another slur against anarchism, commonly used by those who don't understand it. 'anarcho-'capitalists are not considered to be anarchists by any anarchists i know, and are generally derided for their lack of understanding of true libertarian values.
Reply To Stempswooddan
“oh really? then explain why workers in the global south aren't parading around admiring their lovely new houses. economic conditions there seem to be getting progressively worse as, coincidentally, they get better here. of course, suggesting that there's any link would be heretical, but i'm starting to get suspicious.”
If you checked you would find that in China building are going up faster than anywhere in the world. Similar economic growth is occuring throughout much of South-East Asia. Wage rates are rising by around 10% a year, whilst inflation is as low or lower than in the West. VW sell more cars in China than anywhere else now. Are workers in these countries getting screwed by western capitalist companies – yes of course they are, just as workers in the West get screwed by the same companies, that’s how capitalism works it makes profits by extracting more value from workers labour power than it pays them for that labour power. Again if you checked you’d find that whilst wage rates in these ocuntries are rising by 10% a year, wage rates for workers in the US have been falling in real terms for the last 20 years, so not much sign of them benefitting from this profit from trade is there. Real wages in Britain have been pretty stagnant too, which is why people are maintaining their living standards through cheap borrowing. So the facts do not appear to support your hypothesis.
“btw - people who tell other people that their economic theories are muddled are usually tories in my experience.”
Then, perhaps, you should get out more. The majority of people I consider to have muddled economic theories are people that have a very superficial understanding of economics, and who allow their understandable moral indignation at capitalism to get in the way of understanding how it works.
“yes, and the vast majority of workers are not revolutionary, because mass conditioning is so strong.”
So then you have to explain why neither you nor me are affected by this strong conditioning. You may think you are special, a part of some elite unaffected by it, whereas mere workers are, I reject such elitism.
“free for me means free from having to work for anyone.”
You’d have to define that more clearly. As it stands it sounds like some kind of society of self-employed peasants. If so it represents a huge step backwards in human social development. I doubt many workers would want to see their living standards decimated in that way. You may mean some form of co-operative, but that still means working for someone, to the extent that each individual will have their voice, but may be out voted. What are you going to do when you lose the vote, and you are asked to perform some function you disagree with, throw out your dummy decide it’s a hierarchical organisation and try to sabotage it?
“of course not. the whole point of anarchism is that there should be no coercion, unlike that found within the ranks of leftist parties.”
But you have failed to address the substantive point. If as you argue workers have been bought off through higher living standards, or have been brainwashed by overwhelming conditioning then you will never change that will you? All of your sabotage of the system is then just pissing in the wind, if you really believe what you say about workers being bought out or conditioned then either you should just make your peace with capitalism, or find some island somewhere, where those few people who have like you for one reason or another escaped that conditioning an build you Little Icara.
“i don't know what you've been reading but this is bizarre in the extreme. please present some evidence for this, because it is something i have never come across. it is also not anarchist. it sounds more like hobbes' leviathan than anyhthing else, and that is liberal, not libertarian.”
Just look at the website of the US Libertarian party
US Libertarian Party whose aims seem litle different from yours,
or their ideological front Mises
You may also find the following link of interest.
Anarchists v Anarchists
“hang on a minute. i've been continually repeating that i want to see the destruction of capitalism to be replaced with a non-coercive society, whilst you've been arguing for better conditions within a capitalist society”
Exactly, when did I argue for “better conditions within a capitalist society”? I have been arguing as I have for the last 30 odd years for a replacement of capitalism, not merely for better conditions within it. I certainly, have argued against your reactionary concept of sabotaging capitalism, and thereby making the system work worse, which entails lower living standards for workers, because that is what it is – reactionary. It has the nonsensical idea that if workers are made worse off they will become revolutionary and revolt. If workers after a period of militancy, which normally develops during those periods when capiatl has been expanding, when workers are in realtive short supply, and where they are able to win pay increases and other improvements, suffer as a result of some economic crisis they may revolt provided that there is someone to have been educating and organising them prior to the crisis. But, first of all a crisis brought about through sabotage and disorder is more likely to just piss workers off, and drive them into the hands of the Far Right, and secondly, the last 20 years have seen repeated attacks on workers pay and conditions with no increase in militancy, quite the contrary it has seen workers being ground down. If you think that more misery for workers is going to suddenly turn them into revolutionaries my question is, how much misery do you want the working class to have to take?
“and you get to call me a capitalist?”
I didn’t call you a capitalist. I said there was actually nothing in what you had said that was incompatible with capitalism. It is incompatible with large scale, global capital that is true, but only to be in favour of a small scale, reactionary capitalism that humanity by passed a couple of hundred years ago.
“some interesting logic there. what do i propose instead of capitalist economics? a gift economy, based on mutual aid. what do you propose?”
But that tells us nothing. Beyond some very small scale production how are the decisions of what is to be produced to be made? How are links between different enterprises to be organised when you do not accept the need for delegates, organisation or structure? The reality is that absent those kind of structures and organisation the only method of deciding on what to produce, of allocating resources to production, and of distribution is that of the market. And unfortunately, without some kind of socialist class consciousness, without the kind of organisation that drives co-operative enterprise forward towards ever closer integration, without locating very large enterprises at the centre of production and allocating resopurces via some decision making organisations, the continued operation of the market, will inevitably lead back to the dominance of bourgeois ideas, will lead to some enterprises seeking to take advantage of market conditions etc. and thereby leads back to present day capitalism.
“i disagree. sabotage is in the interests of all workers because it works against work itself. all true revolutionary tactics will strengthen the hand of arch-authoritarians like fascists, but that's no reason not to use them. if you want an example of marxists using these tactics take a look at the italian autonomists.”
But work is not against the interests of the working class. On the contrary work is what not only defines the working class in aprticular, but what defines human beings. Without work the working class is nothing. The problem is not work, it is the domination of Capital over work. The job of revolutionaries is not to abolish work – which would be a rather stupid idea to pursue – but to abolish Capital. As for all true revolutionary tactics strengthening the hand of the fascists I have never heard anything so ludicrous. If that is the case the best thing to do is to not employ revolutioanry tactics ebcause the last thing the working class needs is a strengthened fascist menace. The truth is that true revolutionary tactics will weaken the fascists at the same time as weakening Capital. It will do so by enabling workers to understand their real interests, their role, and how they can change society. Its true that your tactics do not do that ebcause they are based not on educating the workers, but on some mindless idea that out of chaos will come the revolution. It may but it would be more likely to be a fascist revolution.
“i think it would be difficult to say that these uprisings occurred simply beacuse an alternative was shown. in many of these situations uprisings occurred because the alternative to rising up was so dreadful it overwhelmed alternative options. perhaps people are reluctant to join mass marxist parties now because they know what the effects of marxist ideology have been in russia, china, etc. you accuse libertarians of having an image of a benign dictator, but surely marxism is considerably more guilty on that front.”
I am not just speaking of uprisings. I am also speaking of the millions of workers that joined Marxist workers parties throughout Europe before WWI, at a time of rising prosperity. From around 1880 to 1914 the world was enjoying economic growth. Living standards were rising, nothing would have been easier given your analysis for workers to have been bought off etc., but they were not. Instead they enjoyed their greatest period of strength. Although, the economic prosperity played a part in facilitating that rise in militancy, the vast numbers that flocked to the workers parties was due solely to the fact that these parties offered a clear alternative to capitalism.
As for your later comments regarding Russia, China etc. I think you opnly need to read articles from this Board on the AWL’s attitude to Stalinism to find your answer to that argument. I would disagree to some extent with the AWL’s position here. The AWL believes that Russia was some form of state capitalist society, and that its nature arose from a counter-revolution led by Stalin. I do not accept the class characterisation of Russia as either State Capitalist or Bureaucratic Collectivist, and I do not think that Marxists can divorce themselves in that manner from what happened in Russia, or subsequently elsewhere. I believe that the degeneration of the Russian workers state was partly the result of historical and material condiitons, but I also do not believe that what happened can be divorced from Lenin’s conception of the revolutionary party, and the Bolsheviks conception of how to build socialism which flowed from that. I do not believe that what happened in Russia or China is a criticism of Marxism, it is a criticism of the misapplication of Marxism, and also unfortunately, an indication of the difficulties that exist in trying to overthrow capitalism, and create a new society.
“leisure and culture are capitalist economies in themselves. why should i have to spend the time that i'm not forced to work having more stolen from me in leisure and cultural goods?”
No they are not. When you had the opportunity to expose yourself to the philosophies that you say freed you from capitalist condiitoning, you did that in your leisure time didn’t you, not as part of work. If you listen to some music by some radical anti-capitalist artist that is leisure and culture too. If you get together with friends to discuss ideas, or to sing, etc. that is leisure and culture and has nothing to do with capitalism. There are a myriad of such examples of the ways in which workers can spend their leisure time in ways which expand themselves as human beings, and which can be used as counter to capitalism. The problem is that the Labour Movement has become so weak, and so used to reliance on bourgeois society to provide these things that it has forgotten how to use them.
“i disagree with you. availability of information does not equate to uptake of information. why would anyone who's been taught to fear their freedom read about how to obtain it?”
Perhaps you should ask all those workers who contributed to the Tescopoly thread on this board, or all those that read the Tubeworker bulletin etc. But if they don’t then you have litle chance of breaking that conditioning you told us a short time ago, was possible.
“or even the experience of being dehumanised by a leftist party or union. the psychosexual revolution must take place simultaneously with the sociopolitical revolution, because either alone is bound to fail.”
Well if you mean some reactionary concept of humans being something other than what they are members of society then no. I am quite happy to recognise that some structures are dehumanising, but that flows from the politics of those that dominate these particular structures it is not a necessary and inevitable function of those structures per se. The answer to that is to democratise those structures. But humans are not individuals they are social beings, there is no individual outside society. What gives workers in particular their definition is the fact that they are part of such solidaristic organisations. Trying to separate them from them is what would be truly dehumanising. Nor do I have any objection to the ideas and concepts that workers have in their heads changing alongside social change. That workers should become class conscious is fundamental to my conception of socialist transformation. But it is society that makes the individual not the individual that makes society. Workers can make great strides before the overthrow of capitalism, but it will only be under a socailist co-operative soceity that human beings will truly liberate themslves and begin to become the New Man.
“of course. but if your class analysis really does lead you to revolutionary thoughts as opposed to merely reformist ones, the quality of your house is irrelevant, because only the establishment of a classless society would be satisfactory. right?”
Absolutely not. If you have some crude idea that revolution occurs out of the blue without preparation as you seem to do, that you just keep sabotaging the system, and having bigger demonstrations I can see why you might come to that rather ludicrous conclusion. The reality is, however, that workers are unlikely to become revolutionary unless they can first demosntarte that they are capable of fighting for reforms within capitalism. If workers can’t even take action to get a decent pay increase to buy or rent a better house then the chance of them feeling confident enough to overthrow the system is negligible. Its like watching a baby keep falling over because it can’t yet stand up properly, and at the same time entering it for the school 100 metres sprint.
My point about the house was not an argument in favour of reformism at all, it was an argument against your msiguided concept of trying to sabotage the system, and thereby make workers living conditions worse!
“Moreover, I think your idea of sabotaging capitalism is also misguided. Sabotage for what end? To be honest I quite enjoy many of the things that capitalism brings. I enjoy the much better house I live in now compared to that I grew up in etc. Why would I want to sabotage that?”
“surely a perfect opportunity for political education! no, sorry, you're right. business as usual is of the utmost importance.”
But what political education? I really want to know what lesson you think workers could learn from simply smashing up a Burger King. You might want to tell them it’s a multinational, you might want to compalin about the low pay of its workers, you might for all I know want to complain about it selling animal products. But what credible response to any of those things does smashing up one Burger King contribute? As Lenin put it you anarchists go in for vilence resale whilst we Bolsheviks go in for it wholessale. The Burger King empire is not going to come crashing down as a result of such tactics. The wages of workers at Burger King are not going to raise as a result in fact they might lose money for several weeks whilst the business is closed. Oh sorry you aren’t interested in workers conditions are you in case they get bought off.
“and aren't these precisely the alternative modes of existence that you were previously arguing that the workers need to be exposed to?”
yes, but you seem to think that that’s all there is, whereas I am arguing that its just the starting point.
“that's funny because i've seen huge campaigns built around direct action, and direct action revitalising areas of campaigning that have lain dormant for a while. give me some examples of these futile actions, and why you think that actions like strikes and demonstrations are any better.”
I didn’t say they were futile, I said they were inadequate, that they are only a starting point. They are worse than say a strike for the simple reason that they are disconnected from what comes next. There is no necessary connection between even the biggest demonstration or piece of direct action,a nd any coherent strategy for changing society. There could be, and there should be, but there is no necessary connection. Instead all too often its an all or nothing thing. A big demo or piece of direct action that leads to just another or calls for revolution that are pissing in the wind. A strike on the other hand is directly a challenge to Capital. Even if it goes no further a successful strike is a defeat for Capital, but the point is that neither I nor any other true Marxist believes that even a strike is sufficient on its own. That was the problem with the anarcho-syndicalism of the IS during the 60’s and 70’s. In the same way you fetishise Direct Action now, they fetishised strikes then. The point is to develop a political programme that goes beyond the direct action, and beyond the strike to build political consciousness within the working class, that seeks to move from defensive battles to offensive battles, that bit by bit reverses that conditioning you were referring to, and establishes in the minds of workers not just their real interests, but the means of achieving them.
“am for a classless society of freely interacting individuals who act upon their desires, not upon the reactive desires that are the product of a violent and authoritarian society. all institutions within this society should be organised by agreement between individuals, not by coercion. how we move towards this is through the exposure of authority for what it is, through continual nonconformity to it, and the development of alternative microsocieties based upon the principles outlined above.”
No sorry, it still sounds very vague, and wishy-washy to me. It tells me nothing about the important questions all societies face, which is how do we produce, and distribute wealth, and seems with your micro-societies etc. to be a call for us to go back to the Middle Ages. Not an attractive proposition.
“you have a very funny view of anarchism if you think this is what anarchists propose. here's a few terms you might want to look up: mutual aid, gift economy. far more radical than anything marx ever proposed.”
Fine, and how other than on some very small inefficient scale is this going to work as even a regional economy let alone a national economy, particularly absent any kind of delegate structure for decision making. It doesn’t seem ideal as a means of operating say a national electricity grid, or national rail network. But then if you want us to all go back to the standrad of living of the Middle Ages so that we don’t get encourgaed to want capitalism back that wouldn’t be a problem for you. Trouble is that I doubt many people would welcome such a standard of living, and wanting capitalism back would pretty quickly be the first thing on their agenda.
“*sighs* another slur against anarchism, commonly used by those who don't understand it. 'anarcho-'capitalists are not considered to be anarchists by any anarchists i know, and are generally derided for their lack of understanding of true libertarian values.”
A bit like confusing Trotskyists or Marxists with Stalinists you mean.
Arthur Bough
concluding statements
i don't feel that this debate is taking a fruitful path as we both seem to be convinced of our own viewpoints and unconvinced by the other's. you say that my theories are vague and wishy-washy, i say that yours are rigid and authoritarian. you point to revolutions of the past, i point to insurrections of the present. whilst this can be frustrating, hence my rather over the top statements at times, i don't wish to be rude or invasive. my only purpose in engaging with this debate was to say: yes, i do agree with socialists on a lot of points. there can be no doubt that a revolution of class and property relations needs to be achieved, for the benefit of humankind. this alone is enough to draw anarchists and socialists together on a great deal of issues. on these it would be mutually advantageous to work together where possible.
on the other hand, i feel that the classical anarchist critique of the state and political parties is important, and too easily ignored by socialists. power does corrupt even those of us with the best intentions, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, in anarchists' opinion, is bound to corrupt the struggle for a just society.
further, more recent post-left tendencies within anarchism, critique the workerist approach of traditional left-wing socialists and anarchists. this approach questions the paramount importance given to the worker within leftist traditions, and indeed, whether work itself is a force for good or bad. a good exposition of this kind of thinking can be found in bob black's 'the abolition of work', but the start of a trend towards this mode of thinking can be traced through the work of the situationists, who derived their theory from traditional marxist thought, whilst taking it further. work, post-leftists would suggest, is resolutely not "what defines human beings", but is merely a spook (in stirner's terminology). spooks are those abstractions instilled by religion, the state, morality, etc. that prevent the satisfaction of desire. (for more on desire, repression, and revolution, the works of wilhelm reich, who was a marxist writing in the '30s who became disillusioned with the cause, are instructive. maurice brinton gives a good introduction in 'the irrational in politics'.) the work ethic is clearly a spook, as it does not benefit the worker, only the worked-for. work means the continual delaying of satisfaction both in work time and in leisure time, that rationed portion of time left over when the best part is already consumed by work. we surely do not want to align ourselves with the statement 'arbeit macht frei'.
related to this is the post-left critique of technology. whilst most socialists, like most others in society, consider advancements in technology to equal 'progress', many in the green anarchist movement are opposed to technological 'advance'. technology and industry, they argue, are at the heart of our lurch towards ecological collapse. there can be no maintenance of our current technology without the total devastation of the climate and biosphere. most socialists imagine technological fixes to these problems, but the only answer that i see as pragmatic is a massive shift towards local organisation of production, and away from heavy industries. many, like yourself, see these changes as a regression, but this is, i would suggest, a reference to the myth of progress as inextricably linked with technology. for me, it would not be "going back to the Middle Ages" because the middle ages were marred by an intensely oppressive feudal social organisation. obviously, we would wish to arrange our society according to principles of consent, rather than repression.
this is linked to the abolition of work, because, were we to embrace a ludic rather than workerist view of life, we would necessarily need to live without factories and large-scale industry. after all, who would choose to work on a production line?
the primitivists, like john zerzan whose 'future primitive' is a classic text, would go further still. their beef with technology is that it out of necessity requires a division of labour, and the creation of specialists. specialism means that some individuals have access to knowledge and skills that others don't, and can subsequently use that as social leverage, in coercion. this cannot create a harmonious society, say the primitivists. instead they take inspiration from hunter-gatherers who are self-sufficient, have a much greater awareness of their ecosystems, and 'work' for very little time each day, leaving the majority of their lives free for socialising with their families. whilst there can be no doubt that it is impossible to expect an immediate shift towards such a lifestyle, i think that many of these are desirable aspects of society that many of us would want, if we were able to obtain them.
i hope that this has given a flavour of some of, what i find, the more relevant and consistent tendencies within anarchism of the recent past. whilst there are many who might call themselves libertarian or anarchist who cling to spooks like nation, organised religion, rights, or the principles of capitalism, as i find them inconsistent with the core anarchist principle of antiauthoritarianism i do not consider their pretentions to those titles as credible.
as far as practical progress is concerned, i also have a tendency to agree that many of the tactics pursued by socialists are important. collective action within the workplace is, of course, an important way of challenging the bosses, and capitalist thinking. however, we must be careful to avoid mediation by union hierarchies, or disempowering petitions to authority. that is why i would promote, not fetishise, direct actions (not 'Direct Action', a label that seems to be limited to jumping in front of bulldozers, blockading roads, and smashing american bombers), actions that allow an individual to realise their power and act for themselves. these are actions that make the corruption of unions and other organisations by power-seeking individuals harder, because people are more likely to think critically, and for themselves, rather than following the leader.
i would be very interested to see what +your+ analysis of the current global political situation is, what you think the important trends in current political thought are, and what practical action you consider necessary for furthering these causes.
(i do not intend to post further here, but you feel free to leave comments on my (infrequently updated) blog, which can be found here.)
Concluding Reply
“i say that yours are rigid and authoritarian. you point to revolutions of the past,”
It’s a pity you have decided not to contiue this discussion as I would have liked to have known what in my views you consider to be rigid and authoritarian, and whilst I have referred to revolutions in the past most of my contributions on this point have been to criticise the effectiveness of “revolution” in terms of the classical political revolution as opposed to the actual social revolution which is usually far more mundane in historical terms, and involves a slow transfer of economic power and ownership from one class to another, and in particular to criticise the traditional Leninist (and therefore Trotskyist) conception of the revolutionary party, and the elitist, statist conception of socialist construction that is attendant upon it.
“there can be no doubt that a revolution of class and property relations needs to be achieved, for the benefit of humankind. this alone is enough to draw anarchists and socialists together on a great deal of issues. on these it would be mutually advantageous to work together where possible.”
I agree.
“on the other hand, i feel that the classical anarchist critique of the state and political parties is important, and too easily ignored by socialists. power does corrupt even those of us with the best intentions, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, in anarchists' opinion, is bound to corrupt the struggle for a just society.”
I agree again, except that I think you misconstrue the Dictatorship of the Proletariat meaning a temporary social domination of society by the working class preceding the dissolution of all classes, with the political Dictatorship of a revolutionary party, or worse still a Stalinist Party. All class societies have been such social dictatorships, and the alternative to a proletarian Dictatorship during the Transitional period is not Anarchy, but at best an unstable dual power between workers and capitalists, or worse the continued domination of capital. That during this period revolutionaries should seek to achieve the greatest degree of democracy in order to prevent the creation of new exploiting strata of one form or another, to mitigate against bureaucratism and corruption is not in doubt. But ahead of time it is not possible to say what history has in store and the conditions that workers will find themselves in, and the measures they will need to take. Its all very well having such democratic aims, but if you are in a life and death struggle with powerful internal and external enemies (as were the Russian workers) a balance has to be struck between democracy and effective waging of that war. That is why I favour building the economic and political strength of the working class as much as possible before that eventuality. It is why, whilst maintaining a revolutionary perspective, I have no fear of promoting the idea of reforms which strengthen the position of workers vis a vis Capital in the here and now that seek to lever economic power away from Capital, and to build structures within capitalism which prefigure the future society.
“the work ethic is clearly a spook, as it does not benefit the worker, only the worked-for. work means the continual delaying of satisfaction both in work time and in leisure time, that rationed portion of time left over when the best part is already consumed by work. we surely do not want to align ourselves with the statement 'arbeit macht frei'.”
Clearly, I disagree. Whilst, the worked for clearly benefits more than the worker it is hard to deny that the worker also gains benefit from this relationship. Without the work of the worker there would be no production, and it is difficult therefore to see how any desires could be satisfied, unless we are to sink into utter mysticism and see the only worthwhile desires as being spiritual. Moreover, I would argue as with Marx that the separation of work and leisure is a false separation resulting from class society and the alienation of labour. We see work as work, and not as some natural human productive activity from which every human should be able to gain some sense of satisfaction because the conditions under which we labour are oppressive and exploitative because we have been separated from our means of production, which come to dominate us rather than serve us as tools, and at the end of this process the object of our labour is no longer something of us, but something of an other alienated from us, and of which, therefore, we have no interest and even just feelings of loathing. Instead of this object being something of us produced for us it is just an object. Once workers once more become the owners of the means of production, once, therefore, those means of production are once more returned to their proper status as tools to be used by labour rather than Capital which uses labour the basis of that alienation begins to disappear. Once the link once more is established directly through co-operative production of production-consumption the objects of our production cease being mere objects and become manifestations of human creativity, and the labour used to produce them ceases to be work as currently understood, and instead becomes natural human activity.
But I would argue that there is no reason why workers should not begin even to prefigure this within the current society. Where co-operative production can be established on a viable basis I am all in favour of it. Where communities need to undertake work to regenerate their community, make provision for their young people etc. and can in doing so claw back some control of their life, we should do so rather than relying on the bourgeois state in one form or another to make such provision. Even within the workplace there is no reason why workers should not demand some control over the work process short of a demand for full workers control. Tenants and Residents Associations should, for example, establish direct links with Local Authority Direct Works Departments on Council estates, to make the necessary link between tenants as consumers and workers as producers. Such links should be used as means both of residents having control over their estates, and workers having some control over their work process. Even capitalist enterprises have used Quality Circles and the rotation of work in order to increase productivity by reducing boredom etc. Workers should demand similar methods to reduce tedium, but under their control and for their benefit rather than the benefit of the employer.
“related to this is the post-left critique of technology. whilst most socialists, like most others in society, consider advancements in technology to equal 'progress', many in the green anarchist movement are opposed to technological 'advance'. technology and industry, they argue, are at the heart of our lurch towards ecological collapse. there can be no maintenance of our current technology without the total devastation of the climate and biosphere. most socialists imagine technological fixes to these problems, but the only answer that i see as pragmatic is a massive shift towards local organisation of production, and away from heavy industries.”
I do not think that Marxists necessarily see technology as having a fix for all the ecological problems that capitalism is creating. There are plenty of pieces on this Board that argue a different perspective, and it is certainly not an argument that I would make. Rather I would argue that it is a matter of who controls this technology. Capital will always use it to maximise profit and further accumulate Capital with little regard for the environment – though I would tend to argue that even Capitalism is not completely stupid, and looks to long term profitability as well as short term profitability. Capital after all cleared up the mess created by the Industrial Revolution when it was in its interests to do so, and when it becomes profitable to produce alternative energy, to reduce energy consumption etc. it will do so. The problem is it may be too late, when it does then act.
I would not rule out local production, and Capital has already made huge shifts away from traditional heavy industry. There are considerable advantages in terms of co-operative production in local organisation depending upon the scale we are talking about, and there are certainly good economic, ergonomic and ecological arguments for seeking to locate power production on a local level close to energy producers. But unless the economy is to be taken back considerably and standards of living reduced along with it, such local organisation of production will still require national co-ordination, and even international co-ordination if we are to make the advances that will be required to truly free humanity, and to fdeal with the problems of lifting large sections of the world’s population out of poverty and despair.
“many, like yourself, see these changes as a regression, but this is, i would suggest, a reference to the myth of progress as inextricably linked with technology. for me, it would not be "going back to the Middle Ages" because the middle ages were marred by an intensely oppressive feudal social organisation. obviously, we would wish to arrange our society according to principles of consent, rather than repression.”
I have no doubt, but over the last couple of years I have had debates of this kind with Libertarians who believe that some free market utopia free of the influence of the state or powerful business interests is possible, and the fact is that it is not. Ideas are a function of material conditions, and if you replicate the material condiitons of production of the Middle Ages you will get some resurgence of the kind of ideas that dominated the Middle Ages. Your laudible desire to renounce coercion may not be shared by everyone. Some individuals may accumulate capital, and again begin to exploit labour, and thereby accumulate even more capital. Merchants may arise who arbitrage between the lower cost or better quality goods produced in one commune compared to another etc., and as they do so over time the idea that people should be free to do what they will provided they do not inflict harm on others, will recreate all of the ideology of free marekt capitalism, and so history will repeat itself. Only by going beyond capitalism rather than retreating from it can that be aavoided.
“this is linked to the abolition of work, because, were we to embrace a ludic rather than workerist view of life, we would necessarily need to live without factories and large-scale industry. after all, who would choose to work on a production line?”
Perhaps many if the period of work were very short, and if regular alternatives and variety were available.
“the primitivists, like john zerzan whose 'future primitive' is a classic text, would go further still. their beef with technology is that it out of necessity requires a division of labour, and the creation of specialists. specialism means that some individuals have access to knowledge and skills that others don't, and can subsequently use that as social leverage, in coercion. this cannot create a harmonious society, say the primitivists.”
That is undoubtedly true under capitalism, or some other form of exploitative system. It may even be true that initially it would be the case after the overthrow of capitalism, but the counter to that is for such specialists to be udner the control and supervision of the workers. Moreover, the whole point is to raise the educational and skill level of all members of society so that any such division of labour is accomplished with a wide pool of available labour such that specialism becomes less important than now. Ultimately, it comes down to the change in human beings that can only occur with the abolition of class society, and the development of a completely new set of human ethics that replace the self centred tendencies within class society and capitalismn in particular with truly human ethics in which everyone does not think separately of themselves as individuals and society as something other than themselves, that recognises the development of one is the development of all.
“instead they take inspiration from hunter-gatherers who are self-sufficient, have a much greater awareness of their ecosystems, and 'work' for very little time each day, leaving the majority of their lives free for socialising with their families. whilst there can be no doubt that it is impossible to expect an immediate shift towards such a lifestyle, i think that many of these are desirable aspects of society that many of us would want, if we were able to obtain them.”
I agree that these may be laudible aims, but I doubt that the reference to the hunter-gatherer is apt. Such societies had many desirable qualities, but I think to talk about them being self-sufficient and working very little are wide of the mark. Most hunter-gatherers had a very tenuous grasp on existence. Far from working very little most had to work a very lot, just to survive. That is why they eventually began to settle down to farm, and were then able to develop technology. It is why having done so in the Nile Valley they then found they needed to work very little, and were able instead to devote their time to building huge structures such as the pyramids in their spare time.
“i hope that this has given a flavour of some of, what i find, the more relevant and consistent tendencies within anarchism of the recent past. whilst there are many who might call themselves libertarian or anarchist who cling to spooks like nation, organised religion, rights, or the principles of capitalism, as i find them inconsistent with the core anarchist principle of antiauthoritarianism i do not consider their pretentions to those titles as credible.”
But the US Libertarian Party would agree with you on much of that. Whilst it argues that the free market is the best means of achieving those goals of individual liberty, its members will argue that they have no problem with individuals engaging in free association to form collectives or co-operatives provided that such groups did not attempt to coerce others or demand state support for their project, or acquired their property through theft (of which they include redistributive taxation).
“as far as practical progress is concerned, i also have a tendency to agree that many of the tactics pursued by socialists are important. collective action within the workplace is, of course, an important way of challenging the bosses, and capitalist thinking. however, we must be careful to avoid mediation by union hierarchies, or disempowering petitions to authority.”
I agree in the main, though there are occasions, when and if a union is run on truly democratic lines that mediation by a union hierarchy is in fact important. For example, I would argue that the current strikes by Public Sector workers in Britain, let aloine the strikes by workers in France at the moment are best served by some national co-ordination of action, some concerted plan of attack. The fact that unions at the moment are dominated by time serving careerists should not lead us into defeatism and reduce us to unco-ordinated action by individuals, but should encourage us to fight for increased rank and file participation within union structures, and the creation of fighting unions based upon democratic structures. Nor do I rule out placing demands on authority provided that those demands are framed in the context of being ultimata as oppsed to being seen as in any way giving credibility to the idea that such authority can be persuaded to act in the interest of the working class.
“i would be very interested to see what +your+ analysis of the current global political situation is, what you think the important trends in current political thought are, and what practical action you consider necessary for furthering these causes.”
I have recently posted some thoughts on this here.
New Thinking
which also includes some links to other posts I have written criticising the Leninst conception of the revolutionary party and socialist construction.
I have also made other comments elsewhere concerning the problems of socilaist construction, and some suggestions, here
Problems of Socialist Construction
The references to blueprints provided by USRed in that discussion are also interesting.
Arthur Bough