Posted by TheBirdAbout2Fly
From time to time the comments thread of an article will take on a life of it's own and generate useful, high level discussion on this or that topic. Learning to Fly hopes to keep an eye on these discussions and bring more attention to the ones we feel are of particular importance. An interesting debate on authority, organization, and centralization has emerged as a bit of a tangent on one of our threads that I feel deserves more attention and further discussion. The thread originally appeared in a post entitled The Deepening of Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution and can be found in it's entirety here.
To start off, as Transcona Slim points out, the discourse between “authoritarian” and “anti-authoritarian” socialism goes back to the days of Marx and Bakunin. Of course, I wouldn't want to just position ourselves in relation to fossilised lines in the sand drawn 150 years ago and rehash the same old arguments here. But I wouldn't want to throw it all away, either. So, how to approach it in a manner befitting of the spirit of this blog? FOOD-FIGHT!!!
I think we would do well to discuss the meaning of some of these terms: authority, organization, centralization (and others)...
I said in the original thread:
Revolution is about transforming society and, of necessity, using violence to acheive that.Any act of violence is an act of authority, as I see it. But the question is, “the authority of what?” In a revolution, it is the authority of the People over the oppressor. They are right and justified to stand firmly against the oppressors, not only to overthrow their power, but also to ensure that it doesn't come back. So, I'd say that because the necessity of the use of violence exists, and because the People are justified in using violence to overthrow the oppressors, it stands that the People are right to exert their authority over the oppressors for the purposes of transforming society. So, to me this “authoritarian/anti-authoritarian” dichotomy is false, if revolution is necessarily the exercise of authority over the oppressors. It seems to be more of a matter of the form that that authority will take.
Transcona Slim says:
I use "authoritarian" as someone who puts an emphasis on the "authority" of the state or individuals dictators. I'm not someone who is all anti-organizational, but there should always be a strong critique of power and authority and how it is used.Here we begin to speak about the organization of revolutionary authority. In the original post I commented that organization means centralization. What I meant by this is that organization always has a basis of unity, a common understanding of the purpose of that organization, that lies at the very heart of the organization. Call it a “mandate”, call it a “basis of unity”, call it what you will, but all organizations are centred around something. Perhaps I was incorrect to call that “centralization”, but I'm not sure. I get the traditional understanding of the word “centralization” as the concentration of power in the hands of one person or a group of elites, and I wouldn't argue in favour of something like that. Still, the question remains, that if organization means having some sort of unity around something, what form does that take? How do we ensure that our organization remains true to the core idea(s) around which it was formed, and doesn't get pulled off course? And, how do we ensure that these core idea(s) are getting us to where we want to go?
Transcona Slim says:
half of the failure of "the left" was a tendency to "gathering around certain goals, principles, and strategies" while denouncing and competing with any and all alternative strategies.It's with this sort of outlook that this project was created. Traditionally, political groups form by gathering like-minded people together, hammering out their basis of unity, and drawing strong lines of demarcation between them and other groups, and arguing why they are correct. The Learning to Fly project was launched with a very broad basis of unity: basically, we recognize the need for radical/revolutionary change. From there we set out to engage with the best that different trends and ideologies have to offer to come to a better understanding of where we are, where we need to go, and how to get there, both on the group level as well as broadly. That said, I think we should be working toward a more narrow understanding of our goals, principles, and strategies, and not just posture militantly with vague calls for revolution. What does revolution mean?
Transcona Slim continues:
Our organizations should be horizontal confederations with a base-theory/goal, but that gives free association to individuals and locals to chart there own path. Instead of disciplined/forced unity, we should create a collective harmony of tactics and ideas that work together.It would be a mistake to think that revolution will look the same everywhere, and will take/should take the same path everywhere. It would be a disasterously huge mistake. At the same time, I'm not sure where we'd draw lines as to where one community ends and where the next begins, and I'm not sure how desireable that would be anyway. Given the interconnectedness of the global economy, is it possible? For example, Canada is a wealthy nation that has gotten rich off the backs of the “Global South” that it has plundered. If we worry only about socializing this wealth in our own communities (however we define that), reorganizing it amongst ourselves, we would only be socializing the plunder of imperialism. Because of our connections to the “Global South” we have responsibilities, so how do we organize that and coordinate that? Would local workers be interested in taking up that responsibility, and if they aren't interested in giving up some of that wealth, should they be forced? And if so, who would do the forcing, and with what mechanisms?
I won't touch on the idea of horizontal confederations just now, but I feel like that's an idea worth digging into as well.
I'm interested to hear what everyone is thinking on these and related topics. So, let's continue this important discussion.
Posts
I’m really glad that this was posted today, as I just read something on the subject. I’m probably write more later, but first I want to share this.
ReplyDeleteI’ve been reading the book “Vision on fire: Emma Goldman on the Spanish Revolution” by David Porter. In a letter written 3/4/38 to Russian anarchist Mark Mratchny, Goldman indicates how the Spanish experience forces her to distinguish between anarchism and revolution:
“More and more I come to the conclusion that there can be no Anarchist Revolution. By its very violent nature Revolution denies everything Anarchism stands for. The individual ceases to exist, all his rights and liberties go under. In fact life itself becomes cheap and dehumanized. Perhaps it is due to the fact that Anarchism is too far ahead of its time. Whatever the reason it is certain, as Spain has again proven, that nothing remains of Anarchism when one is forced to make concessions that undermine the ideal one has struggled for all one’s life. You see, my dear, I do not feel very happy in my shows.”
Of course, one has to remember that Goldman would go between short, joyous trips to Spain to see the revolution to only return do the long, dull drudgery of Britain.
::Transcona Slim::
The Insurrectionary People's Picture Show Theater: http://liberatedtheater.blogspot.com/
So then the question must be asked, how do you think we can bring about a better world?
ReplyDeleteGoing to post a response on my blog (http://liberatedtheater.blogspot.com/) to this article some time today.
ReplyDeleteAs to how do we think we can bring about a better world, I have plenty ideas, but here's Andrej Grubacic talking about generalized principles on how to change the world (I'll post the entire series on my blog in a few days).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1OUR2-1BHM
By all means post a response on your blog. However, we'd like to have the full discussion available here, so could you post it here as well, or send us something via email that we can post?
ReplyDeleteAlso, just to clarify, this is in no way a polemic against you. It's just a focussing up of the discussion using points you made to put the question in to focus.
I'll be back...
One of the challenges we face in moving forward is the contradiction between the individual and society. There needs to be room for individual expression and creativity, but at the same time Humans are social animals, and we must understand the social relations that penetrate our society so deeply. So, I think here is where we start to speak of a common goal, for lack of a better word. How can we speak about uprooting oppressive social relations on only an individual level?
ReplyDeleteAlso, what do we mean by "rights"? Rights according to what? According to who? That is, according to which central force, or central point of reference? Do you see what I'm saying? I'm getting back to the part about organization (in this case of society) being centered around something (necessarily always). In capitalist society we have "rights". We have the right to remain silent, to an attorney, but we don't have the right to go on a wild cat strike. See, "rights" are defined by who controls society (and enforced by the organizations that arise therefrom).
I mean I can't say from that quote exactly what rights Emma Goldman is speaking about, so...
The point is to remake society in the interest of the People and not the bourgeois ruling class. I can't imagine that in a revolutionary society "rights" will be defined in the same way and be distributed in the same way as they are now.
I think Emma Goldman is right to think that anarchism is ahead of its time, if that means it's getting too far ahead of itself. She seems to want to skip over all the contradictions and material challenges in the process of getting from capitalism to a classless stateless society (what she would call anarchism, and what I'd call communism). And I don't blame her, 'cause that's gonna be a long hard slog. She even says, in a round about way, that she's an idealist. But I don't think that we can be idealists if we are aiming for a radically different world than the one we're living in now.
I think the Goldman quotation suggests that she had a strong streak of idealism in her politics -- not idealism in the sense of having ideals (which all radicals have), but not being grounded in complex historical material realities.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that she could both write what is quoted here and serve as an official representative in London of the anarchist CNT unions whose leadership was steering a non-revolutionary course in the midst of the Spanish Revolution (as argued by the anarchist Friends of Durruti group, the left wing of the anti-Stalinist Marxist party POUM, and Trotskyists). But that is another story...
Thinking about the idea of movements being centered around certain guiding principles, and being organized so as to keep those principles as a guide, I think this is what is meant by the term "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat". It is the dictatorship of the interests (the guiding principles)of the proletarian class over society. Currently we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
ReplyDeleteSo, I understand the term "D. of the P." as meaning the dictatorship of the interests of the proletariat. How this will be organized, I'm not sure. As Sebastian says, we face complex historical material realities, and we'll need to face the challenges that result head on. Vanguard Parties and revolutionary states have been put forward by some as mechanisms to deal with these challenges. Rightly or wrongly, we need to understand that they didn't exist for no reason. Can we have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat without these mechanisms? Or am I getting ahead of myself? Is the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as I've described it, useful or even desirable?
I think that, as far as Emma Goldman goes, she would be all fine with being called an idealist, and I would argue that I am too. I worry that people arguing from a "realist" perspective often times accept things that are wrong if they can justify it to the "reality" of the situation.
ReplyDeleteAs far as revolution and authority goes, I think went we talk... I hate to use that word again... "anti-authoritarian" authority, it is not the authority of violence but the authority of ideas. The Revolution does not need be violent. As a wobbly, I think we can take hold of property without violence, though a social general strike, occupations, boss-napping, etc and start rebuilding without violence.
But we cannot expect that the reaction to our revolution to be peaceful, and he self-defense of the revolution is totally justified. "The Revolution" and self-defense of the revolution should be considered separate.
I think this is historically accurate. The (First) Russian Revolution started as general strikes, workplace occupations and the setting up of soviets, and military mutinies. The Bolshvik Coup that strangled the revolution was the violent 'revolution'.
Same with Spain. The violence of the Spanish Civil War was not the Revolution, rather it was the anti-fascist war. The revolution was the constructive rebuilding on the homefront.
And that's the difference between what authority of "anti-authoritarian" and the authority of "authortarian" brands of socialism. The Authority of "anti-authoriarians" is a practice of an idea, a process of unending creative construction, while the authority of "authoritarians" is a coercive, violent military authority that captures/re-creates the state and it's bourgeoisie institutions.
Transcona Slim says:
ReplyDelete"But we cannot expect that the reaction to our revolution to be peaceful, and the self-defense of the revolution is totally justified. 'The Revolution' and self-defence of the revolution should be considered separate."
Revolution does not exist in a bubble, and this reaction to the revolution is intimately tied to it. So this sentence seems to be idealist, but then recognize the short comings of that idealism. Really, it just underscores Sebastian's comment that idealists separate themselves from the complex material conditions we find ourselves in.
Now, I'm not trying to accuse anyone of idealism or use idealism as a bad word, but I am making the argument that idealism is not what we need. So, yeah, there will be many people, of which Goldman may have been one, who are alright with the label "idealist" but that is beside the point, I think.
As for non-violent methods, I certainly don't think that violence is preferred. I don't think that people renounce pacifism because now they really like violence, but rather they recognize the necessity of not taking it off the table. I would also argue that these "non-violent" methods that Slim is offering as example are not as non-violent as they might seem. The obvious first example is boss-napping. But even the other methods have an element to them worth exploring. I would argue that non-violent methods will only win you what your armed force already guarantees you. That is, the ruling class will only allow peaceful transition when they feel that any attempt to attack would unleash violent forces that they cannot overcome (i.e. the self-defence of the revolution). So it's dialectical in a sense. The 'self-defence' of the revolution seems to be a justified response, but it's potential pre-exists it's use, and very much comes into play in terms of 'peaceful' uprisings.
But, even more fundamentally, I think that people fight both against something as well as for something. In a revolutionary situation, for example, the People are fighting against the old order, and are fighting for a new order. And the Bourgeoisie is fighting to retain power and against the new order. So, there's this double-sidedness in struggle. Fighting for and against something. Defensive and offensive.
Transcona Slim: I'd like to hear more on your take on the Russian Revolution. If not here, then hopefully sometime in the future.
I'd like to preface everything by saying some of what I will say is going to be very contradictory to everything I've said so far, so I apologize. If anything, ignore my Muddled Ramblings and Half-baked Ideas.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I disagree. Rather, it's how .
RE: Idealism. I think I've said that being too realistic, studying the "complex material conditions" too much can lead to a placidness. I am reminded of an anecdote from the book "Bakunin: The Creative Passion". In 1870, the workers of Lyon, France revolted and proclaimed a commune. Bakunin rushed to Lyon to the barricades, even though he was of advanced age and could do very little. While Bakunin was in Lyon, Marx was in the British Library, trying to figure out of France was at an advanced enough stage in capitalist development to have a revolution.
By only focusing on the "complex material conditions" of society, I worry that it denies the creative ability of spontaneous revolt and creation. "all power to the imagination" and what not.
"But, even more fundamentally, I think that people fight both against something as well as for something. In a revolutionary situation, for example, the People are fighting against the old order, and are fighting for a new order. And the Bourgeoisie is fighting to retain power and against the new order. So, there's this double-sidedness in struggle. Fighting for and against something. Defensive and offensive."
Although the defense agienst the violent reaction should be met with violence, and thus separate from the revolution itself, how we struggle shouldn't be broken up between defensive and offensive, they should be one in the same. That is, by creating/prefiguring the new order in the hear and now, we are directly striking at the old order. "build the new world in the shell of the world" as we wobblies say. Our organizations and how we struggle should reflect how we are going to organize the world of tomorrow.
Since the Russian Revolution was mentioned, here are some suggested readings:
ReplyDeleteThe collection of historical articles entitled "The Workers' Revolution in Russia: The View from Below" is good on the social revolution of 1917
On 1917 and the beginnings of the degeneration of the revolution that led to the Stalinist counter-revolution, Sam Farber's book "Before Stalinism"
www.revolutioninretreat.com is the site associated with Simon Pirani's excellent book of the same name. His new book is a fascinating detailed look at Moscow workers and politics 1920-1924. On the site, Pirani's article "The Russian Workers and the Bolshevik Party in Power" or Sam Farber's review of Pirani's book give a good sense of his analysis. It challenges both how most anarchists have seen the RR and how most Marxists have understood what happened.
I think we should consider this site as "radicals thinking out loud", so we shouldn't be so concerned with contradicting ourselves necessarily, or saying "I don't know". No one here is going to rake anyone over the coals for exploring new ideas. We're here to work things out, and this is how it happens.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a dialectical relationship between theory and practice. Theory informs practice, and practice tests and informs theory. This is precisely one of those complex material realities that we face. I think that developing a theory that will lead to emancipation in practice may require a period dedicated to thinking it. I'm not sure that Marx could have produced Capital without locking himself in a library for years. But, because of that we have a thoroughgoing critique of capital that we now use to strike at capitalism. Without a deeper understanding of capitalism what would our practice produce (or worse yet, reproduce)? This period of thinking doesn't necessarily only mean intellectuals cloistering themselves up in a library, and I think that this blog is a part of the broader process of thinking theory. But I think that the contributions made by some intellectuals are indispensable.
That said, we'll need to have a plan to overcome the division between mental and manual labour if we're going to have a classless stateless society, obviously. It's a contradiction that Humanity has not been able to overcome yet.
I'm not arguing that struggle should be broken up into defensive and offensive. What I'm saying is precisely what you said, that they should be considered one and the same because they are intimately tied together. Our actions are at one and the same time offensive (going for something) and defensive (preventing the reconstitution of the old).
I don't know about this "build the new in the shell of the old" theory. I think in many ways our ability to create the new will not be allowed full expression until the power of the ruling class is toppled. I mean, until the working class seizes power over all of society, capitalist logic will dominate. Factories and other business concerns will still be driven by the laws of capitalist production precisely because these concerns do not exist in a bubble, but rather are connected to each other. Where does the worker-run concern get its materials from? How does it pay its overhead? Without a grabbing hold of all society and deliberately changing the way we as humans relate to each other, capitalist relations will spontaneously regenerate.
Sebastian, thanks for the links. I look forward to reading them.
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/communist-theory-as-non-dogmatic-anticipation/
ReplyDeleteHere's a transcript of a talk given by Alberto Toscano which touches on some of the ideas we've been discussing (the contradiction between theory and practice, the dual nature of struggle as negation of the old and articulation of the new, etc...)
I have a really good book visa vi theory/practice and prefigurationary structures. Called "Wobblies and Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism and Radical History". By Andrej Grubacic,an anarchist from the Balkans and Staughton Lynd, pacifist Marxist, the book explores where theory and practice comes from, how to use history as a radical, the role of the radical in accompaniment of regular folk, etc etc.
ReplyDeleteI have a PDF of the book, if people want to email me for it, my email is: phatmatt_11@hotmail.com