| Subscribe to our free newsletter |
 |
| Stay up to date with changes to our website, news about articles in forthcoming issues of Amandla!, news about our Discussion Forums and Seminars and much more ... click here to subscribe |
| Amandla! Office: 129 Rochester Road, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa Postal Address: P.O. Box 13349, Mowbray, 7706, Cape Town Telephone: +27 (0)21 4472525 Fax: +27(0) 866378096 |
|
|
| Amandla! is published by |
| Alternative Information & Development Centre (AIDC) a progressive activist think tank that focuses on the multi-dimensional crisis. AIDC sees the necessity of integrating both the ecological and economic dimensions of the crisis into its programmes. It does this from the perspective of developing alternatives that ensure planetary sustainability and social, economic and environmental justice. |
| Detailed reply to International Socialism: debating power and revolution in anarchism, Black Flame and historical Marxism | | Print | |
|
Page 1 of 18 **This paper substantially expands arguments I published as ìCounterpower, Participatory Democracy, Revolutionary Defence: debating Black Flame, revolutionary anarchism and historical Marxism,î International Socialism: a quarterly journal of socialist theory, no. 130, pp. 193-207. http://www.isj.org.ukThe growth of a significant anarchist and syndicalist2 presence in unions, in the larger anti-capitalist milieu, and in semi-industrial countries, has increasingly drawn the attention of the Marxist press. International Socialism carried several interesting pieces on the subject in 2010: Paul Blackledgeís ìMarxism and Anarchismî (issue 125), Ian Birchallís ìAnother Side of Anarchismî (issue 127), and Leo Zeiligís review of Michael Schmidt and my book Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism (also issue 127).3 In Black Flame, besides a wealth of historical material and historiographical debate, we provide probably the most systematic overview to date of the anarchist and syndicalist traditionís internal debates and varying positions on a wide range of questions, including trade unionism, anti-imperialism and national liberation, gender and race, Bolshevism and the Soviet Union, post-revolutionary economic and social reconstruction, and the role of specifically anarchist political organisations. Paulís discussion of what Marxists view as anarchismís flaws is written in a comradely tone. He also notes, quite correctly, that too often our traditions engage in a ìcaricatured non-debateî rather than a useful discussion.4 Ian stresses that in practice the ìlines between anarchism and Marxism are often blurred.î5 Leo praises Black Flame as ìa fascinating account of the often obscured history of anarchists, their organisations and history.î6 In this regard, I found Paul and Ianís commentary refreshingly open. This goodwill is to be commended, and I will try in my response to attain the same tone. Many misunderstandings have arisen between our two traditions, but there are also real divergences in perspective and analysis; our entangled history has had both its good and bad sides. This calls for a comradely but also frank debate on the principles and strategies needed to usher the contemporary world into a radically democratic, post-capitalist era. It also requires some discussion of historical experiences, since these are an essential reference point for current struggle. In addition, I agree with Leo that we always need to speak in a precise manner, given that neither anarchism nor Marxism is homogenous; each tradition is contested, and some criticisms that apply to one tendency cannot fairly be applied to others. Marxism and anarchism/ syndicalism: convergence and blurred lines Some basic areas we can, I think, agree on from the start. I gather that the comrades are attracted to Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky precisely because they view these figures as champions of socialism-from-below. Paul writes that the ìessenceî of their work is ìworking class self-emancipation.î7 Leo speaks of the importance of working class people undertaking ìthe democratic defence of working class powerî through ìtheir organs of self-organisation; councils, trade unions, communes etc.î8 The International Socialist Tradition (IST) is one of the only Marxist currents that stresses its commitment to ìsocialism from below.î ìWorking class self-emancipation,î ìself-organisationî and ìthe democratic defence of working class powerîñ we do not disagree at all on these basic issues. For Mikhail Bakunin and Pyotr Kropotkin, social revolution required a movement for self-emancipation ìby the only two classes capable of so mighty an insurrection,î ìthe workers and the peasantsî9ñ the popular classes. The ìnew social orderî would be attained ìthrough the social (and therefore anti-political) organisation and power of the working masses of the cities and villages,î ìfrom the bottom upî and ìin the name of revolutionary Socialism.î10 With ìa widespread popular movementî in ìevery town and village,î the masses would ìtake upon themselves the task of rebuilding society,î through associations operating on directly democratic and anti-hierarchical principles.11 This would be a movement of counter-power and counter-culture, outside and against the ruling class, the state and capital. It aims at ìa revolutionary power directed against all the established principles of the bourgeoisie,î and opposed to all forms of social and economic inequality.12 (Unsurprisingly, Lenin said ìthe principle, ëonly from belowí is an anarchist principleîñ one, I must add, he called ìutterly reactionaryî).13 Presence: the historical impact of anarchism and syndicalism As Leo points out, this history has been ìoften obscured.î But what has been obscured? A vast part of class struggle and left thought, and of popular history, not least in the colonial and postcolonial world. It is easily forgotten that well into the 1950s, anarchism and syndicalism were mass popular class movements, hardly the marginal forces usually presented in Marxist writing. Today, anarchists are again central to the ìmost determined and combative of the movementsî fighting capitalist globalisation,14 the main pole of attraction for many activists,15 not least in the recent Greek uprisings of 2008. There is a pervasive spread globally of the anarchist values of bottom-up organising, direct action and refusal to participate in the official political system.16 Benedict Anderson reminds us that the broad anarchist tradition was long the ìdominant element in the self-consciously internationalist radical Leftî, ìthe main vehicle of global opposition to industrial capitalism, autocracy, latifundism, and imperialismî.17 Eric Hobsbawm admits that before 1917, ìthe revolutionary movementî was predominantly ìanarcho-syndicalist.18 ìBetween Marxís death and Leninís sudden rise to power in 1917, orthodox Marxism was in the minority as far as leftist opposition to capitalism and imperialism was concerned ñ successful mainly in the more advanced industrial and Protestant states of Western and Central Europe, and generally pacific in its political positions.î19 The notion that anarchism ìbecame a mass movement in Spain to an extent that it never did elsewhereî20 ñ that is, of Spanish exceptionalismñ is widely held. It is, however, incorrect. Mass movements in the broad anarchist tradition developed in many countries, and the Spanish movement was by no means the largest. Latin America and Asia, for example, provide many examples of powerful and influential anarchist and syndicalist movements, some of which rivalled that of Spain in importance, and anarchism and syndicalism predominated for many years in the colonial and postcolonial world: Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Eastern Europe and Ireland.21
|
