the left |
Tuesday October 31, 2006 06:37 by Wayne Price - NEFAC & NYMAA drwdprice at aol dot com
An anarchist leaflet
An anarchist leaflet given out at a conference of the International Socialist Organization in NYC which challenged its Trotskyist views.
On October 28, 2006, we attended the first day of a two-day Northeast Socialist Conference: Build the Left/ Fight the Right! in New York City. Despite its ecumenical title, the conference was organized by the International Socialist Organization (ISO) and limited to its point of view. We handed out the following leaflet. The ISO has the same politics as the British Socialist Workers Party and other members of its International Socialis Tendency, although it is organizationally distinct (due to some quarrel). Some of the leaflet is applicable to other variants of Trotskyism. (Full disclosure: I was a founding member of the ISO’s predecessor, the International Socialists--having previously been an anarchist-pacifist. )
You Trotskyists of the International Socialist Organization claim to have the same goal as we class-struggle social anarchists: a worldwide revolution by the working class and all oppressed, against the capitalists and their states (including the remnants of the “Communist” state capitalist regimes)--and to replace these states with associations of councils. But you ruin it because of your methods: your attempt to recreate the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky, and to do what Lenin and Trotsky did in Russia. When you deviate from this attempt, it is only to use social democratic methods. We will demonstrate this.
*You seek to create a “workers’ state.” But there is no such thing as a “workers’ state.” Engels defined the state as a “public force” which “consists not merely of armed men but also of material appendages, prisons, and coercive institutions of all kinds....” Its officials are “organs of society standing above society....representatives of a power which estranges them from society....The state is an organization for the protection of the possessing class against the non-possessing class.” Does this sound like something the working class can use? All previous ruling classes have needed states because they were minorities who needed to hold down majorities. The working class and its allies is the big majority. In a revolution, it will not need a socially-alienated, bureaucratic-military, machine to hold down the pro-capitalist minority. It will need the self-organization of the workers and the oppressed themselves: workplace and neighborhood assemblies, federated councils, and an armed people, a workers’ militia. This is not a state. Because the Bolsheviks aimed for a state, they ended up with a state--a bureaucratic monstrosity.
*The Russian Revolution, led by Lenin and Trotsky, ended up as a totalitarian nightmare. You blame this, not on the Bolsheviks you admire, but on “objective circumstances”--Russia’s poverty, the failure of the revolution to spread, etc. All of which was real. But it is also true that the Bolsheviks never advocated multiparty/multi-tendency soviets, workers’ rank-and-file management of industry, independent trade unions, etc. By 1921, when Lenin and Trotsky were in power, they outlawed all other parties (and jailed and massacred the anarchists), banned all caucuses inside the one legal party, and insisted that the unions be controlled by the party. It was Lenin and Trotsky who legalized the single-party police state! Stalin built on what they had created. Trotsky and his Left Opposition fought Stalin while agreeing with the single-party dictatorship. Until his death, Trotsky continued to regard Stalin’s dictatorship as a “worker’s state” because the economy was nationalized.
*The topdown, centralized, vanguard party which you advocate is made for only one purpose: ruling a state. We are pro-organizational anarchists, in the tradition of “platformism,” especifismo, and the F.A.I. We believe that revolutionary anarchists should organize ourselves to spread our ideas in unions and other popular organizations. Our aim is to encourage the oppressed to take over society and run it through direct democracy and limited delegation. But your Leninist goal is for the party to rule society. You think that the workers can come to power only when your party is in power. Implicitly you aim to rule for the workers. Well, your party may come to power, but only to rule over the workers.
*Like your fellow Trotskyists of the Spartacist League, your goal is a centralized party, ruling a centralized state, managing a centralized planned economy, ultimately on an international scale. This would be a monstrously bureaucratized, inefficient, and oppressive system. Instead we propose federated associations, decentralized communities and regions, worker-run industries--all planned from the bottom up by negotiation among councils.
*Your centralized, authoritarian, political philosophy affects everything the ISO does. You have developed a deserved reputation for being manipulative and controlling, and for vacillating between sectarianism and opportunism. For example, you have actively built Ralph Nader’s campaigns, with and without the Green Party. Leaving aside our anarchist anti-electoralism, Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky advocated electoral activity only to develop the political independence of the working class (which did not work out very well, considering the history of the Social Democratic and Communist parties). Nader is a supporter of capitalism and its state, as is the liberal Green party these days. They are trying to create a liberal, third capitalist, party. For the ISO to campaign for Nader was to cross the class line. You did it to build the ISO, not out of any principle.
*Similarly in the labor movement: Your announcement for this Northeast conference says, “This past year has been an exciting time for labor....The Transit Worker's Union in NYC defied the draconian ‘Taylor Law’ and went on strike, inspiring workers throughout the tri-state and the nation. Forced back to work by the the MTA ...they organized their rank and file for a successful, surprise ‘no vote’ on [the] contract. “ This fails to mention the TWU bureaucracy which could have gone on “defying” the state, but which chose instead to cave in, to betray their workers, and to demoralize many workers--so that they eventually voted for the contract.
*In the antiwar movement, you have called for Support to the Resistance! It is right to express solidarity with the oppressed people of Iraq and Lebanon against U.S. imperialism. It is wrong to use these slogans which imply (to almost everyone) political support for nationalist, pro-capitalist, and misogynist leaders. Revolutionaries should participate in all popular movements, to build them, while raising our own internationalist working class politics--in opposition to the pro-capitalist leaderships.
*With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Marxism has been discredited for many people. Instead the radical impulse has flowed into the historic other radicalism, Anarchism. But the basic ideas remain: the evils of capitalism, the need to smash the state, the importance of the working class, the value of other rebellious forces (women, GLBT, racially and nationally oppressed, etc.) , the fight against imperialism, the need for international revolution--and the need to build a revolutionary organization to fight for these ideas. Trotskyism just isn’t the right program for the revolution.
To learn more about anarchism in New York and nationally,
Northeast Federation of Anarchist-Communism
New York Metropolitan Alliance of Anarchists
In their *Marxism and Anarchism* workshop, the ISO speaker said that anarchists do not accept any social authority over the individual, do not believe in democracy, and have no class analysis. (All untrue, at least for the anarchists I work with.) Anarchists, he said, were petty bourgeois and, especially, did not understand dialectics. (!) In the Spanish revolution of 1936, the anarchists of the CNT-FAI betrayed their program by joining with the bourgeois parties to form a Popular Front government to fight against the fascists, which led to capitulation to the capitalists and the Stalinists, and eventually to the fascists.
In the few minutes I got to respond, I agree with the criticism of the Spanish mainstream anarchists. But I pointed out that most of the parties in the Popular Front were Marxist: the Socialist Party, the POUM, and the Communists. As the ISO does not identify with those *Marxists,* so we do not identify with those *anarchists* but with the Friends of Durruti and others who opposed joining the Popular Front and advocated a revolution.
Anyway, it was absurd to be accused of Popular Frontism and capitulating to bourgeois politicians, when I had just come from an ISO workshop on Venezuela which urged “support” for Hugo Chavez, including voting for him in the next Venezuelan election. And in the US, the ISO had twice campaigned for the capitalist politician Ralph Nader. Forget Spain, you were crossing the class line here and now!
Several speakers denounced the leaflet because it blamed Lenin and Trotsky for laying the groundwork for Stalin. It was all objective factors, they insisted. These speakers were completely ignorant of the real history of the original Leninist regime and its authoritarian acts.
(The next day they were going to have Sam Farber talk about Castro, but they have not read his book, *Before Stalinism, The Rise and Fall of Soviet Democracy,* as one example.)
Privately, one ISOer objected to the leaflet for connecting the ISO with the Spartacist League as *fellow Trotskyists.* I agreed with him that the SL was pretty vile, but I insisted that it was a variety of Trotskyist, as was the ISO, and that they agreed on the goal of a centralized state and economy.
I doubt t hat any ISOers read the leaflet and suddenly saw th e light. But the ISO has a lot of turnover and I have met a number of anarchists who had been in or close to the ISO at one point. So we do not know if the seed we plant now may eventually grow an anarchist plant.
Why elections fail to bring about real change Feb 19 0 comments
Why can’t the 99% simply vote in a government that acts in their interest and not that of the 1%
At a simple level parliamentary elections sound like the ideal way for the mass of the ‘have nots’ to use their numbers to overcome the power and influences of the tiny number of have’s. Occupy talked about this division in the language of the 1% and 99%; a crude approximation that does reflect a reality where the number of wealthy decision makers is actually very tiny, indeed less than 1%. So, why can’t the 99% simply vote in a government that acts in their interest and not that of the 1%?
Sedition, Subversion, Sabotage: Jan 28 0 comments
We'll be most successful by using both legal and illegal tactics but keeping the two forms separate. Illegal direct action is sometimes necessary to impair the system, impede its functioning, break it in a few places, open up points of vulnerability for coming generations to exploit. As groups we should do only legal resistance. Since we have to assume we are infiltrated and our communications are monitored, illegal acts must be done alone or in small cells without links to the group. Security is essential. Police may have the identity of everyone in the group, but if members are arrested and interrogated, their knowledge will be very limited. The principles of leaderless resistance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance) provide the most effective defense for militants.
On Dogmatism Apr 07 0 comments
Dogmatism is a manifestation of theoretical and/or ideological deficiencies, such as idealism (metaphysics), sectarianism, elitism or followership. It’s a significant obstacle to working class emancipation, which we must identify and comprehend in order to combat it. There are several variants and expressions, including:
An anarchist critique of horizontalism Feb 24 3 comments
Horizontalism is an emerging term used to describe the key common characteristics of the waves of rebellion of the last decade. Occupy in 2011 was the peak to date but the term Horizontalism itself appears to originate the rebellion in Argentina after the 2001 banking crisis there. Marina Sitrin in her book on that rebellion says the term (in Spanish obviously) was used to describe the neighborhood, workplace & unemployed assemblies that emerged to form "social movements seeking self-management, autonomy and direct democracy."
Image by Author:Meeting in Gezi Park, June 2013
The Nostalgic Left Feb 15 0 comments
The nostalgic left is a bit of shorthand I’ve started using for those on the left who have reacted to the disintegration of the old left by wishing for idealised simpler times. And perhaps more strangely blaming the collapse on what they see as threatening new developments, like intersectionality. They hold such newfangled nonsense responsible for the current failure of the left to get an echo from the general population.
Murray Bookchin Aug 11 0 comments
La creación de una tendencia que el llamó "comunalismo", criticada por muchos fundamentalistas "superrevolucionarios", que ni siquiera se toman la molestia de estudiarla a la luz de las experiencias actuales, constituye un camino de construcción altamente valorable y necesario, en los tiempos en que los movimientos sociales se encuentran con tan baja autoestima y grado de fuerza.
Zapatistas announce details of organisation of Intercontinental encounter Nov 29 EZLN 3 comments
The Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona proposed a new Intercontinental encounter to follow up those held in the 1990's in Chiapas and the Spanish state. This communique announces details of a consultation to take place until June 30th on holding it that proposes that “Intergalactic Committees” be formed on the five continents.