OscailtCounterpower, Participatory Democracy, Revolutionary DefenceDebating Black Flame, revolutionary anarchism and historical Marxism2011-04-10T14:22:26+08:00Anarkismoanarkismoeditors@lists.riseup.nethttp://www.anarkismo.net/atomfullposts?story_id=19254http://www.anarkismo.net/graphics/feedlogo.gifinhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/19254#comment132462011-04-10T14:22:26+08:00ain spanish please! :)in spanish please! :)Great texthttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/19254#comment132632011-04-23T12:41:39+08:00Belgadas.belge at gmail dot comI haven't read the full long version* however in my humble opinion this is an in...I haven't read the full long version* however in my humble opinion this is an incredible piece of work. I hope that we can translate it to spanish.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
Belga - Red Libertaria de Buenos Aires.<br />
<br />
*Full version:<br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5NiHgBvoMJtNmEzYTQ1ZjYtMjI3MC00OGQzLTliNTctYmFhNjYxZjAyYzlk&hl=en" title="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5NiHgBvoMJtNmEzYTQ1ZjYtMjI3MC00OGQzLTliNTctYmFhNjYxZjAyYzlk&hl=en">https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=...hl=en</a>We need to overcome this vulgar and primitive dogmatismhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/19254#comment132792011-05-02T03:43:58+08:00Jan MakandalI tried to avoid engaging in any discussions pitting against each other revoluti...I tried to avoid engaging in any discussions pitting against each other revolutionary militants, engaged in their own struggle to transform their social formation, in a competitive manner, simply because the rule of engagements is to build unity, and in competition, unity can’t be achieved. In our camp, the objective of the rules of engagement is to construct unity in our battle to defeat capital. Rules of engagements are defined and determined by class struggle.<br />
<br />
I will do so in this case, not because my position on competition is in a process of rectification but because some points raised in this response are for me contemporary, and those points are worth struggling around in our common struggle to defeat capital and collectively offer a viable alternative to capitalism and imperialism, rather than discussing over some dead comrades so that we transform their contributions, some of them valuable contributions, positive or negative, into formulas, scriptures and general untouchable dogma that we are competing over their correctness or incorrectness without even acknowledging whether those formulas still practical and applicable to our new objective reality.<br />
<br />
I did start reading Black Flame, as a revolutionary militant, and quickly discovered in the process of reading Black Flame that I was being offered a choice on the color of the flame, not a means to light the flame from lessons learned from the past, simply a simplistic choice of choosing the color of the flame. For me, for theory to be a guide for our actions it must be non-partisan, non emotional. It must be intransigent, non-apologetic for it to be effective. Theory is an interpretation of an objective reality, since that objective reality is constantly evolving due to the fact the struggle of production and class struggle is the motor of an uninterrupted dynamic development of that reality. The production of the theory therefore must constantly evolve and adapt to that dynamic, making theory, the productions of theory constant, not permanent, imposed by this dynamic internal to any objective reality. This problematic is totally unnatural, irreconcilable to dogmatism and sectarianism. Both the response to International Socialism, Black Flame, the text by IST and most of the debate between Anarchists and Marxists are of the same trend and all are unable to really contribute to develop a theory capable of guiding us to confront capitalism, especially in a period of deep crisis.<br />
<br />
My position is that Anarchism and Marxism with all their denominations need deepening to face our new objective reality and this deepening will not occur by defending either but by an attempt to exceed all in the construction of a proletarian alternative, where all theories, all contributions become the collective property of the proletariat. After all, isn’t this what communism is all about?<br />
<br />
The need to enter a new stage<br />
We are in the period of imperialism and proletarian revolution. All stages in proletarian theory must correspond to a new stage of proletarian struggle internationally. It is certain, the Bolshevik revolution, the Chinese revolution, the Vietnamese revolution and the National Liberation movements are enclosed in a stage and the need to enter a new stage at present. We have enough elements in the struggle of the international proletariat to do so, but our experiences are limited, very limited. Much more needs to be accomplished by the international proletariat to really enter a new stage. One of the important contradictions that new stage needs to overcome is the constant search for an individual, a trend, and a revolutionary militant to associate, as essential with that stage. The thought process of identifying an individual or a trend as representing a new stage is deeply flawed, bureaucratic and elitist, presenting theoretical positions as dogma, enshrining the positive as well as the negative aspects of their contributions, to be quoted from to validate arguments. This is completely anti-proletarian.<br />
<br />
It is important, from the conception of proletarian internationalism, to work, to develop theory from a collective conception, even if, at times, some ideas do originate from particular individuals. This individual origination is irrelevant, accidental, besides being historically determined by broader social forces. The collective development of proletarian revolutionary theory is its correspondence to the class nature of the proletariat. This is what is corresponds to communism. We must overcome the form and limitations that all the previous stages took, that corresponded to previous levels of capitalism, and the form proletarian struggles took, and the maturity of these proletarian struggles. Finally theory is to be validated, and the validation is the implementation of that theory in reality and the process of validation to be guided by a constant need of rectification, consolidation and the application of the constant relation of specific to general, so our theory as a guide need to have a dual purpose, a specific one and an universal/general one to serve as a guideline in our international struggle against capital. For the left to have a future, we need to overcome this vulgar and primitive dogmatism and sectarianism. We need to deepen existing concepts and come with new one to advance in our struggle against capitalism and imperialism. I will follow with a series called Debunking formula and scripture.<br />
<br />
Debunking formula and scripture [1]<br />
1] The lexical definition of Democracy is not derived from the objective reality of class struggle and class domination, an intricate element of class struggle. Democracy is structural and abstract. Democracy is defined and determined by class struggle in any class society. So, the concept of democracy is historically determined based on the class that dominates society.<br />
• Democracy is the capacity of a class/fraction of classes or classes to maintain and reproduce its or their domination. <br />
• Democracy is power, political power guaranteeing that reproduction of power in a social formation divided in classes. <br />
• Democracy is dictatorship, meaning with all the struggles existing in that society in the final analysis, the social practice will conform or be recuperated by the class dominating this society in the interest of that class and all classes that are part of the dominant classes. To think dictatorship is repression. Is formulating a reformist vision of dictatorship. All the anti-dictatorship struggles waged in the seventies are concrete examples of that reformism. Most recently, Egypt, Tunisia, and the ongoing struggles in North Africa are dominated by reformism.<br />
• Democracy is the power of a class to maintain it domination [formal power] and the capacity of that class to administer it [real power]. This administration is done through the State Apparatus. To confuse and or fuse formal power with real power leads us to reformism. For example, the anti-Apartheid struggle was not addressing real power by not addressing the power of capitalism and making the anti-capitalist struggle the fundamental form of struggle, leading to a reformist path. The same could apply for Haiti, Nicaragua or El Salvador and the National Liberation movements.<br />
• Democracy is not elections. Election is a democratic right won in most social formations by popular struggle. In the US, although we have called it a democratic society, correctly so, slavery existed, women, as well as African Americans, won the rights to vote much later, but it was still a bourgeois democracy. The political orientation to boycott elections or abstain from elections is in fact a reformist practice. Our role is to debunk the electoral process in bourgeois democracy and show that it is window-shopping, not a form of power sharing. We could use the electoral process, applicable in specific instances, to expose bourgeois democracy but not to proceed in the belief that we have a chance. Whether we vote or not the dominant classes will still hold power, will still control the capacity of their reproduction.<br />
• Democracy is structural: guaranteeing the reproduction of the social relations in a social formation at all levels, economic, politic and ideological, all these levels exist in a relation of relative autonomy, determined by the economy. The reason we can identify a social formation as a slave, a feudal or capitalist social formation is because these modes of production are characterized by the dominant mode, even if other modes of production still play a role. Inside a social formation in general the entire historically constituted social classes, or/ and in the process of being constituted, the relations of these classes are the structural constitution of class struggle, and democracy regulates these relations and reproduces them.<br />
• Democracy is different from bourgeois democratic rights. Bourgeois democratic rights are won in battle: the right to vote, civil rights, and the eight-hour day work and/or in the struggle inside the dominant classes. Bourgeois democratic rights are popular struggles won in battles and some of these rights integrated bourgeois law.<br />
• Democracy is class dictatorships, even in exceptional periods or conjuncture such as autocracy’s or fascism the underpinning aspect is class dominance and class dictatorships manifesting in class struggle in the interest of primarily hegemonic fraction as well as in the interest of the power block. Power block meaning the entirety of all classes comprising of the dominant classes, with all their internal struggles, the unity of these classes facing the popular masses and their internal struggles to guarantee the reproductions of these social formation in their best interest as well as the power block. Dictatorship is never individual or express by a political party. This one of the empirical mistake made in the understanding of the degeneration of the Soviet Union. It was not a party dictatorship, even if the hegemonic bourgeois fraction controlled state power. An empirical conclusion not allowing us to deepen our knowledge of Russia and learn from the economist orientation allowing the formation and the constitution of the bourgeoisie in that social formation.<br />
<br />
These points mentioned are vary concise and could be clarified in an ongoing debateDebate, history, partisanshiphttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/19254#comment132812011-05-02T23:08:44+08:00Red and Black ActionAs always, Jan's points are clear and challenging. I agree about the importance ...As always, Jan's points are clear and challenging. I agree about the importance of politics being informed, indeed, "defined and determined by class struggle." I also agree that debates that are "competitive" pose some problems, and the dangers of sectarianism and dogmatism. <br />
<br />
However, I am sure you, Jan, agree that we need to have a historical understanding of the debates that the previous generations of militants engaged - debates that obviously shaped their praxis - so that we have some reference points to inform how we engage with a contemporary reality. Even the question of whether we are in a new "stage" cannot easily be posed without that. Even the question of what is to be done, now, cannot easily be posed now. Also, lessons must be drawn from the past, because they do inform the present. What a "new stage" implies is not something that is neatly set by objective realities; many people talking about, say, 21st century socialism mean very different things.<br />
<br />
Now, if you think most of the debates between anarchism and Marxism are "unable to really contribute to develop a theory capable of guiding us to confront capitalism, especially in a period of deep crisis," that is fine. But you should show this, rather than imply that alternative views on this are simply partisan, dogmatic, sectarian etc. They are, perhaps, simply "intransigent, non-apologetic." Like yours.<br />
<br />
Respectfully.<br />
The IMT has also tried to critique us.http://www.anarkismo.net/article/19254#comment132922011-05-07T13:32:24+08:00Larry gamboneredlionpress at hotmail dot comJust recently the International Marxist Tendency released an article purportedly...Just recently the International Marxist Tendency released an article purportedly critiquing anarchism. It was even worse than the attempts dissected in this article. Good response, by the way! My own attempt at dealing with the IMT can be read at <a href="http://porkupineblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/critique-of-anarchism-not-really.html" title="http://porkupineblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/critique-of-anarchism-not-really.html">http://porkupineblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/critique-of-a....html</a> 50 Ways to Prepare for Revolutionhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/19254#comment133012011-05-14T10:51:50+08:00Stephanie McMillanI agree with Jan Makandal's point: "One of the important contradictions that new...I agree with Jan Makandal's point: "One of the important contradictions that new stage needs to overcome is the constant search for an individual, a trend, and a revolutionary militant to associate, as essential with that stage. The thought process of identifying an individual or a trend as representing a new stage is deeply flawed, bureaucratic and elitist, presenting theoretical positions as dogma, enshrining the positive as well as the negative aspects of their contributions, to be quoted from to validate arguments. This is completely anti-proletarian."<br />
<br />
I would like to share this list of things we can do in a situation of low struggle, as exists for example in the U.S., where I am. It does not draw a line between anarchists, communists, radical environmentalists or any others who want to bring this system down. We need to learn from history, of course, but this generation must create its own path. (Please attribute if reprinted, unchanged).<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
50 Ways to Prepare for Revolution<br />
<br />
The people of the United States are currently unprepared to seize a revolutionary moment. We must fix that.<br />
How can we raise our levels of revolutionary consciousness, organization and struggle?<br />
<br />
Raise consciousness<br />
<br />
1) Raise consciousness with the purpose of building organization and raising the level of struggle.<br />
<br />
2) Investigate before forming opinions. Research how the world and the system function.<br />
<br />
3) Read foundational and historical works about revolution, by those who have participated in and led them.<br />
<br />
4) Analyze the system’s current condition and trajectory.<br />
<br />
5) Learn about the resistance, uprisings and revolutions going on in the world today.<br />
<br />
6) Read the material that currently active groups are issuing and discussing.<br />
<br />
7) Continuously develop, elaborate upon and refine principles, theories and strategies for our movement.<br />
<br />
8. Raise our voices. Articulate revolutionary ideas, and give them a public presence.<br />
<br />
9) Listen and speak in the spirit of mutual clarification.<br />
<br />
10) Participate in discussion, to develop our ideas and hone our skills in expressing them, and to help others do so.<br />
<br />
11) Figure out how to use all our various talents, positions, energy and resources as effectively as possible, to expose the system’s evil, irredeemable and unreformable nature.<br />
<br />
12) Analyze and explain the many ways the system dominates and exploits.<br />
<br />
13) Stand with the dominated, exploited, invaded, colonized, threatened and oppressed.<br />
<br />
14) Display a revolutionary spirit and celebrate it in others.<br />
<br />
15) Exercise patience in winning over reluctant potential allies and supporters.<br />
<br />
16) Ridicule and discredit the enemy.<br />
<br />
17) Create revolutionary culture. Make videos and art, speak, sing, and write blogs, books, comments, leaflets, rhymes, stories, and articles about the enemy s crimes and the people s resistance.<br />
<br />
18) Exchange ideas locally, nationally and (within the law or safe channels) globally.<br />
<br />
19) Encourage others to participate in the revolutionary process.<br />
<br />
Organize<br />
<br />
20) Organize as a way to raise consciousness more broadly and to build struggle.<br />
<br />
21) Start with people we know.<br />
<br />
22) If our friends discourage us, make new friends.<br />
<br />
23) Network sensibly with people online. Find local people online who express similar ideas, and meet with them.<br />
<br />
24) Find a group that we basically agree with. Work with it.<br />
<br />
25) If there’s no local group we want to work with, start one.<br />
<br />
26) Write a leaflet with contact info. Pass it out in public to find potential comrades.<br />
<br />
27) When we meet people, assess our points of agreement. If we agree on basic essentials, decide how to work together. If not, say goodbye for now.<br />
<br />
28) Build strong ties locally and nationally, and build solidarity globally.<br />
<br />
29) Define allies according to overall outlook and goals.<br />
<br />
30) Don’t let secondary differences prevent cooperation. Handle differences between allies non-antagonistically.<br />
<br />
31) Do not tolerate oppressive (sexist, racist, homophobic etc.) dynamics within the movement. Confront their expression and put a stop to it.<br />
<br />
32) Refrain from saying anything aloud, on the phone or electronically that we wouldn’t want to hear played back in court.<br />
<br />
33) Keep illegal drugs away from our political life.<br />
<br />
34) Research and practice good security culture.<br />
<br />
35) Prioritize the wellbeing of our organizations over personal benefit.<br />
<br />
36) Ready our ranks to seize on any breaks in the legitimacy of the system.<br />
<br />
Struggle<br />
<br />
37) Use struggle to spread revolutionary consciousness and build organization.<br />
<br />
38) Collectively determine what we want, and declare our demands.<br />
<br />
39) Act as far as possible within our capacity, not either beyond or below our capacity.<br />
<br />
40) Continuously strive to expand and consolidate our capacity and strength.<br />
<br />
41) Assert our rights and our responsibilities.<br />
<br />
42) Bring our revolutionary perspective into struggles already occurring.<br />
<br />
43) Defend, support, and encourage our allies.<br />
<br />
44) As opportunities arise, weaken the enemy and its ability to rule.<br />
<br />
45) Obey the small laws. Don t get taken out of the game for something unworthy.<br />
<br />
46) For illegal acts, make sure you can trust your comrades with your life and the lives of everyone connected to you.<br />
<br />
47) Avoid being distracted and diverted into symbolic action-for-action’s sake.<br />
<br />
48) Don t expect the enemy to act against its nature. It has no mercy and can not be reasoned with.<br />
<br />
49) Turn every attack by the enemy into an opportunity to speak out, organize, and grow more powerful.<br />
<br />
50) Be willing to work hard. Be smart. Be brave. Remember we re all in this together. <br />
vulgar and primitive dogmatism?http://www.anarkismo.net/article/19254#comment133252011-05-26T07:07:11+08:00WayneThis is an excellent statement. Lucien deserves credit for writing it and the Br...This is an excellent statement. Lucien deserves credit for writing it and the British SWP credit for publishing it. <br />
<br />
I do not agree with Jan's statement that it is a case of sectarian dogmatism, made irrelevant by the new stage we are in. On the contrary, one of the curses of the radical movement is that we do not study the lessons of the past and learn from tkhem. We keep reinventing the wheel and making the same mistakes. Learning from the past does not mean that we have to do exactly what some sage once said, but we should think about it. This is especially true when dealing with the disputes between Marxists and anarchists. A great deal of blood has been shed over this "debate" and may yet be shed again if we do not take ourselves seriously.<br />
<br />
I may not fully agree with Lucien; I am not sure. I think that there are libertarian-democratic trends within classical Marxism as well as valuable scientific knowledge (mainly the critique of political economy). And I believe that there are authoritarian and dangerous trends within anarchism, from Proudhon's and Bakunin's racism and antisemitism to the Spanish mainstream anarchists' betrayal of their program and the working class. <br />
<br />
But none of this alters his main points: that the mainstream of Marxism participated in supporting imperialism and then in creating totalitarian state capitalisms, killing tens of millions of workers, peasants, and revolutionaries. Whatever the faults of anarchism, it does not have this record!<br />
<br />
Nor is this just something in the past, in a previous stage. The Cuban state remains influential. The Columbian FARC remains powerful. The Nepalese Maoists remain powerful. The great nation of China is still ruled by a Communist Party. Who is to say that such regimes may not yet arise again?<br />
<br />
And what of the Trotskyists with whom Lucien is debating? Unlike the "orthodox" (Pabloite) wing of Trotskyism, they reject Trotsky's theory that Stalin's regime remained a "workers' state," because it maintained nationalized property. BUT they continue to justify and support the one-party police state of Lenin and Trotsky as a "workers' state" and "dictatorship of the proletariat." AND they believe that Stalin's bureaucratic-dictatorship was "a workers' state" and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" up until 1929 (long after every drop of workers' power was squeezed out of it). With such views, how do we know that they would not recreate a one-party police state themselves, given the chance? They do not intend to, but neither did Lenin and Trotsky in the beginning (probably). <br />
<br />
So, yes, anarchists should be willing to learn from anyone--Marx, Trotsky, Malcolm X, feminists, ecologists, religious people, etc. But not by ignoring our history and what we already know.Trotsky and forced industrialisationhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/19254#comment142672012-06-01T19:52:16+08:00the red star twinkles mischeviouslyIf I remember correctly, (and while I think the article referred to to back up t...If I remember correctly, (and while I think the article referred to to back up the claim 'Trotsky, The Left Opposition, and the Rise of Stalinism' is well done, and has merit to be sure) Trotsky and the Left Opposition were not so much in favour of 'forced' industrialisation, but of a faster pace than what was occuring under the NEP. If I may quote from Victor Serge's Memoirs: "We had proposed a tax on the rich peasants- they were actually liquidated! We had proposed limitations and reforms of NEP- it was actually abolished! We had proposed industrialisation- it was done, on a colossal scale that we, "superindustrializers" as we were dubbed, had never dared to dream of, which moreover inflicted immense suffering on the country" (Serge 2012:293). Even the notoriously hostile historian Robert Service, in his biography of Trotsky, claims that 'Trotsky displayed... restraint when demanding the quickening of Soviet industrialisation" and favoured a system of collective farming to be conducted "on a voluntary basis" (Service 2009:350). Comments?