The communist left and internationalist anarchism, Part 1: What we have in common
In the series Left communism and internationalist anarchism
For a few years now, certain anarchist individuals or groups and the ICC have overcome a number of barriers by daring to discuss in an open and fraternal way. Mutual indifference or rejection between anarchism and marxism have given way to a will to discuss, to understand the positions of the other, and to honestly define points of agreement and disagreement.
In Mexico, this new spirit made it possible for a joint leaflet to be signed by two anarchist groups (GSL and PAM[1]) and an organisation of the communist left, the ICC. In France, recently, the CNT-AIT in Toulouse invited the ICC to make a presentation at one of its public meetings[2]. In Germany as well links are being made.
On the basis of this dynamic, the ICC has begun working seriously on the history of internationalism in the anarchist movement. During the course of 2009 we published a series of articles under the heading ‘Anarchists and imperialist war' [3]. Our aim was to show that with each imperialist conflict, part of the anarchists was able to avoid the trap of nationalism and defend proletarian internationalism. We showed that these comrades continued to work for the revolution and for the world working class despite being surrounded by chauvinism and the barbarity of war.
When you know the importance that the ICC attaches to internationalism, which is a real frontier separating revolutionaries who genuinely fight for the emancipation of humanity from those who have betrayed the proletarian struggle, these articles were not only an intransigent critique of the pro-war anarchists but also and above all a salute to the internationalist anarchists!
However, our intentions were not always well perceived. For a while this series met with a frosty reception in some quarters. On the one hand, some anarchists saw the articles as an outright attack on their movement. On the other hand, some sympathisers of the communist left and of the ICC did not understand our efforts to find a "rapprochement with the anarchists"[4].
Aside from certain errors in our articles which may have irritated some people[5], these apparently contradictory criticisms actually share the same roots. They reveal the difficulties in seeing the essential elements which bring revolutionaries together, above and beyond their disagreements.
Going beyond labels
Those who identify with the struggle for the revolution have traditionally been classed in two categories: the marxists and the anarchists. And there are indeed important divergences between them:
- Centralism/federalism
- Materialism/idealism
- Period of transition or ‘immediate abolition of the state'
- Recognition or denunciation of the October 1917 revolution and of the Bolshevik party
All these questions are certainly very important. It is our responsibility not to avoid them, and to debate them openly. But still, for the ICC, they do not demarcate "two camps". Concretely, our organisation, which is marxist, considers that it is fighting for the proletariat on the same side as the internationalist anarchist militants and against the ‘Communist' and Maoist parties which also claim to be marxist. Why?
Within capitalist society, there are two basic camps: the camp of the bourgeoisie and the camp of the working class. We denounce and combat all the political organisations which belong to the former. We discuss, often in a sharp but always a fraternal manner, and seek to cooperate with, all the members of the second. But under the same label of ‘marxist' there are genuinely bourgeois and reactionary organisations. The same goes for the ‘anarchist' label.
This is not just rhetoric. History is full of examples of ‘marxist' or ‘anarchist' organisations who have claimed with hand on heart to be defending the proletariat, while in reality stabbing it in the back. German social democracy called itself ‘marxist' in 1919 when it was assassinating Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and thousands of workers. The Stalinist parties bloodily crushed the workers' uprisings in East Germany in 1953 and Hungary in 1956 in the name of ‘communism' and ‘marxism'(in fact, in the interests of the imperialist bloc led by the USSR). In Spain, in 1937, the leaders of the CNT, by participating in the government, served as a cover for the Stalinist murderers who repressed and massacred thousands of ...anarchist revolutionaries. Today, in France for example, the same name ‘CNT' covers two anarchist organisations, one which defends authentically revolutionary positions (CNT-AIT) and another which is purely ‘reformist' and reactionary (the CNT ‘Vignoles')[6].
Identifying the false friends who hide behind labels is thus a vital task.
But we should not fall into the opposite trap and believe that we are alone in the world, the exclusive holders of ‘revolutionary truth'. Communist militants are still very thin on the ground today and there is nothing more harmful than isolation. We therefore have to fight against the tendency to stand up for your own ‘chapel', your own ‘family' (whether marxist or anarchist), against the shop-keeper's spirit which has nothing to do with the politics of the working class. Revolutionaries are not in competition with each other. Divergences, disagreements, however profound they may be, are a source of enrichment for class consciousness when they are discussed openly and sincerely. Creating links and debating on an international scale are absolute necessities.
But for this to happen, we have to know how to distinguish between revolutionaries (who defend the perspective of the overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat) and reactionaries (those who, in one way or another, help to perpetuate this system), without fixating on the label of ‘marxist' or ‘anarchist'.
What unites marxists and internationalist anarchists
For the ICC, there are fundamental criteria which distinguish bourgeois from proletarian organisations.
Supporting the combat of the working class against capitalism means both fighting exploitation in an immediate way (during strikes for example) while never losing sight of what's at stake in this struggle on the historical level: the overthrow of this system of exploitation by revolution. To do this, an organisation must never give its support, even in a ‘critical' or ‘tactical' way, or in the name of the 'lesser evil', to a sector of the bourgeoisie - whether the ‘democratic' bourgeoisie against the ‘fascist' bourgeoisie, or the left against the right, or the Palestinian bourgeoisie against the Israeli bourgeoisie, etc. Such an approach has two concrete implications:
1. Rejecting any electoral support or cooperation with parties which manage the capitalist system or defend this or that form of this system (social democracy, Stalinism, ‘Chavismo', etc)
2. Above all, during any war, it means maintaining an intransigent internationalism, refusing to choose between this or that imperialist camp. During the First World War as during all the imperialist wars of the 20th century, all those organisations who supported any of the warring camps abandoned the terrain of internationalism, betrayed the working class and were definitively integrated into the camp of the bourgeoisie[7].
These criteria, outlined here very briefly, explain why the ICC sees certain anarchists as comrades in the struggle, why it wants to discuss and cooperate with them while virulently denouncing other anarchist organisations. For example, we have cooperated with the KRAS (the section of the anarcho-syndicalist International Workers' Association in Russia), by publishing and welcoming its internationalist declarations on war, notably the war in Chechnya. The ICC considers that these anarchists, despite our differences with them, are an authentic part of the proletarian camp. They clearly demarcate themselves from all the anarchists and ‘Communists' (like the Communist parties, the Maoists or Trotskyists) who defend internationalism in theory but oppose it in practice by defending one belligerent against the other in imperialist wars. We should not forget that in 1914, when the First World War broke out, and in 1917, when the Russian revolution took place, the majority of the ‘marxists' of social democracy took the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, whereas the Spanish CNT denounced the imperialist war and supported the revolution. During the revolutionary movements of the day, anarchists and marxists worked sincerely for the proletarian cause, and despite their disagreements found themselves on the same side. There were even efforts to develop an organised and wide scale cooperation between the revolutionary marxists (Bolsheviks in Russia, Spartacists in Germany, Dutch Tribunists, Italian abstentionists etc) who had separated from the degenerating 2nd International, and a number of internationalist anarchist groups. An example of this process is the fact that an organisation like the CNT envisaged the possibility of joining the Third International, although it rejected this in the end[8].
To cite a more recent example, in many parts of the world today there are anarchist groups and sections of the IWA who not only maintain an internationalist position but who also fight for the autonomy of the proletariat against all the ideologies and currents of the bourgeoisie:
- these anarchists call for direct and massive class struggle and self-organisation in general assemblies and workers' councils;
- they reject any participation in the electoral masquerade and any support for political parties who take part in this masquerade, however radical they claim to be.
In other words, they stick to one of the main principles of the First International: "the emancipation of the workers is the task of the workers themselves". Those comrades are part of the struggle for the revolution and a world human community.
The ICC belongs to the same camp as these internationalist anarchists who really defend working class autonomy. Yes, we consider them as comrades with whom we want to debate and cooperate. Yes, we also think that these anarchist militants have more in common with the communist left than with those who, under the label of anarchism, actually defend nationalist and reformist positions and are thus really defenders of capitalism.
In the debate which is slowly developing between all the revolutionary groups and elements on the planet, there will inevitably be mistakes, animated debates, clumsy formulations, misunderstandings and real disagreements. But the needs of the proletarian struggle against a capitalism which is becoming increasingly unbearable and barbaric, the indispensable perspective of the world proletarian revolution, a precondition for the survival of humanity, make this a vital and necessary effort, a duty in fact. And today, when we are seeing the emergence of revolutionary proletarian minorities in many countries, who refer either to marxism or anarchism (or who are open to both), this duty to discuss and cooperate should meet with a determined and enthusiastic response.
Future articles in this series will deal with our difficulties in debating and the way to overcome them. We will also look in more detail at the Anarchist Federation in Britain, which we have mistakenly labelled as a leftist group in the past.
ICC 30/6/10
[1] GSL: Grupo Socialista Libertario (http://webgsl.wordpress.com); PAM: Proyecto Anarquista Metropolitano (http://proyectoanarquistametropolitano.blogspot.com)
[2] There was a very warm atmosphere throughout this meeting. Read the report on it written on website: ‘Réunion CNT-AIT de Toulouse du 15 avril 2010: vers la constitution d'un creuset de réflexion dans le milieu internationaliste'
[3] See ‘Anarchism and imperialist war', World Revolution numbers 325-328. All available online, beginning here: http://en.internationalism.org/2009/wr/325/anarchism-war1
[4] In particular, some comrades were initially uneasy about the joint GSI/PAM/ICC leaflet. We tried to explain our approach in a Spanish article entitled ‘What is our attitude towards comrades who are part of the anarchist tradition?' (http://es.internationalism.org/node/2715)
[5] Some anarchist comrades rightly pointed out certain imprecise formulations and even historical errors in these articles. We will return to this. However, we do want to rectify the most glaring errors here:
- On various occasions, the series ‘Anarchism and imperialist war' asserts that the majority of the anarchist movement fell into nationalism during the First World War while only a handful of individuals risked their lives to defend internationalist positions. The historical elements brought to the discussion by members of the IWA, and confirmed by our own researches, show that in reality a large number of the anarchists opposed the war from 1914 onwards (sometimes in the name of internationalism or anationalism, or under the banner of pacifism)
- The most embarrassing mistake (which up till now no-one has pointed out) concerns the Barcelona uprising in May 1937. We wrote in WR 326 that "When the workers of Barcelona rose up in May 1937, the CNT were complicit in the repression by the Popular Front and the government of Catalonia" - the French version used "anarchists" instead of the CNT, but the ambiguity remains in the English version, since in reality, it was the militants of the CNT or the FAI who made up the majority of the insurgent workers in Barcelona and were the principal victim of the repression organised by the Stalinist hordes. It would have been much more accurate to denounce the collaboration in this massacre of the CNT leadership rather than the "the anarchists". This in any case is the real content of our position on the war in Spain, as defended in particular in the article ‘Lessons of the events in Spain' in no. 36 of the review Bilan (November 1936)
[6] Vignoles is the name of the street where their main HQ is located. ‘AIT' stands for Association Internationale des Travailleurs - in English the International Workers' Association
[7] However, there were groups and elements who were able to break away from organisations which had gone over to the bourgeoisie, for example the Munis group or the group which gave rise to Socialisme ou Barbarie in the Trotskyist Fourth International
[8] See ‘History of the CNT (1914-19): The CNT faced with war and revolution', International Review 129, http://en.internationalism.org/ir/129/CNT-1914-1919
Comments
I like the turn in the ICC
I like the turn in the ICC to more open debate with those who share internationalist proletarian positions. Down with sectarianism and dogmatism!
Me too. But ...
As a CNT AIT member, i also like this turn and hope it will help to stop with sectarianism and dogmatism.
That is why I am really sad when i read in the "legacy of Flores magon" article ( http://en.internationalism.org/inter/155/magon) such negative and frankly dogmatic appreciations as :
"we can say without a doubt that despite his political weaknesses [anarchism ...] he died as a true militant of the world working class."
I mean, all the revolutionary tendancies of the XX century have proved to be "weakness", as no revolution won over capitalism (already).
Please, stop to use so derogatory (disparaging ?) words when talking about anarchism, otherwise it will be very hard to continue to discuss ...
It is a long way to take off the old clothes of sectarianism ...
To be fair
To be fair, the article makes it clear that "political weaknesses" wasn't a synonym for anarchism. Read this paragraph:
"It was a victim of its confusions and political weaknesses: in particular its conspiratorial vision of a worker's revolution, despite the break the PLM had made with liberal bourgeois politics. That this break with liberalism was influenced by anarchist ideology did not help either, but this is a secondary question here."
Thus, in this and other paragraphs the author pointed to concrete, specific weaknesses -- that may have been due to the PLM and Magon's anarchist ideology. The fact of the matter is that leaving dogmatism and sectarianism behind doesn't mean that an organization will simply welcome every tendency within the workers' movement as equal; honestly attempting to find the good and the bad within those tendencies, without paying heed to labels or tradition hostilities, as in the case of Marxism and Anarchism, is the epitome of honest discussion.
I don't know why anyone
I don't know why anyone would complain that left communists view anarchism as a political weakness. It's still possible to have a fraternal debate, while engaging in criticism of one another. Fraternal debate does not equal no criticism; to do this would be to fall victim to the postmodernism fallacy that all opinions are equally valid because there is no truth. If we don't defend our positions and engage in what we view as valid criticisms how can any real debate take place? Even if we admit that the political movement of the working class is inherently contingent and always open to further development from a variety of tendencies falling under the broader definition of proletarian internationalism; this does not mean that we view all parties to the debate as having the same political strength.
criticism is not slandering
Fraternal debate does not equal no criticism
Yes you are right. My point wasn't to refuse to highlight the differences, but just to say that it is not necessary to use slanders.
May be is it because english is not my native language by weakness is a slander to my understanding. You can find find a lot of different words to define Magon politic view but weakness. If Magon would have been so weak, he would have join the nationalist turn in the left in 1914, as did the huge majority of marxists for instance ...
So who can be blamed of "weakness" ?
What is really unberable in this text on Magon, as it was on the sery about "anarchists and war", is the pretention that anarchists are - by nature - "weak" or "inconsistent", except when they align on the marxists (and especially the bolshevik) point of view. So a good anarchist would be only the one that evolve toward bolshevism. The idea below is that only marxists are right - and not weak.
Sorry but this is a pretentious position, that just makes any discussion difficult ...
Marxism and marxists organistions also has been weak in history. To be fait, ICC should also analyse the weakness of marxism and especially in his own left communism tradition, and not only point the errors or weakness of the others.
to be fair
sorry, typo error. Last sentence should read :
To be fair, ICC should also analyse the weakness of marxism and especially in his own left communism tradition, and not only point the errors or weakness of the others.
I agree that criticism is
I agree that criticism is not slandering. But we could have ended an article on Lenin in exactly the same way: despite his political weaknesses (support for national liberation, confusions on trade unions, parliamentarism, role of the party in the transitional state...etc) we still see him as a militant of the working class. Our whole approach to marxist and left communist traditions is to show how the clarity they attained was won through constant criticism and reflection on political weaknesses....
Polemic
To Anarchosyndicaliste: Open discussion and documented criticism in the form of polemics is a very old tradition of the working class movement. The majority of serious polemics in the ICC's press are about left communist organizations. They also publish internal debates that go on within the organization. You say, "To be fair" the ICC should analyze the weaknesses in Marxism and *especially* the left communist tradition. This is a biased criticism in and of itself- as it gives the impression that the above article is inappropriately harsh or uncalled for, and that the ICC has more problems and weaknesses than the CNT- without explicitly saying so. And, as I already pointed out, the majority of polemics they write and publish are of left communist and other proletarian groups past and present.
polemic or attacks ?
the majority of polemics they write and publish are of left communist and other proletarian groups.
Yes but always of the others groups.
I don't say that ICC is more weakness than CNT. On the contrary, CNT had a vrey strong problem in 36 when participating to the spanish republican governement. So it is major failure, we need to still have in mind. But i think CNT made its own critic of this error.
Now regarding ICC, did he made a balance of it own weakness ?
Because what you call polemic are in fact attacks : others are always bad and ICC is always good, no rgard of the context nor situation.
For instance, I mean is it possible to have a debate with ICC to know if the fact that Chirik enroled into the french army in 1939 was a sign of weakness or not ?
(the fact that he joined an imperialist army - like did some french anarchists in 1914 that filled up because they ddin't have any other choice in reality - do not obviate the respect one can have for him).
Is it possible to have a debate on the flew of the same Chirik in 1952 from France to Venezuela ? What does it means in a term of organisation's concept, when you want to protect "the head" ?
To Alf : OK i see your point. But the question is : OK a debate, but what for ? If i understand well, your concern is to go deeper into marxism approach. By my side, i am more interested to go deeper into revolutionnary (or communist if you prefer) approach. To go beyond "marxism vs anarchism" approach. You want to remain a marxist, that is your right. I would like rather to try to be a communist.
Going beyond labels
Just a last word : (i pushed the button by mistake) :
It is exactely what this ICC text is claling for by the way :
"Going beyond labels"
So it means abandon the "marxist" or "anarchist" label, just to be simply "revolutionnary" or "communnist".
Marxism is the scientific
Marxism is the scientific analysis of history and society from the point of view of the proletariat. However, it is a method rather than a collection of facts. It is simply not possible to "transcend" Marxism if you want your communism to remain on the scientific level. If you want to question scientism altogether than that is another question. In terms of "polemic" vs. "attack." This is a thorny question, especially when emotions are involved. Engaging in debate is serious business; if we are going to allow our feelings to get hurt and cry attack at every perceived offense than little debate will be possible.
That was uncalled for, Anon.
That was uncalled for, Anon.
scientific method ...
Well, engaging in debate is serious business, you are right.
Scientific method existed before marxism, and will exist after. But the scientific method of today is not exactely the same than at the time of Galileo, Copernic, Newton or Laplace.
So if you want to remain on scientific level, you have to update your method : the "marxist method" is based on the science of his time (determinism, Newton, Laplace and that kind of stuff) But since then science evolved a lot ... Science of today is non determinist, non linear (have you heard about Chaos theory for instance ? How does it fit with Marxism ?). So marxism - as a science - is not anymore relevent.
It is like if you still use astrolabe for astronomy in the time of high sensibility sensor ...
Another thing : science is only a tool to understand the world, not an instrument to change it. This is politic.
And there is no science for politic. Only experiments and after it is reality that deals with making the balance.
Marxism, Historical Materialism
To Anarchosyndicaliste:
The 'Marxist Method' or 'Marxist Science', Historical Materialism, is the most potent weapon in the arsenal of the working class. It not only gives us an understanding of the past and the present, but also a perspective for the future. It is incomprehensible that you claim to be for a revolutionary communism in one breathe and in the next say that Marxism is "Not Relevant Anymore." This idea of a revolutionary movement "Beyond Anarchism & Marxism" is a modernist monstrosity on par with the post-modernists and situationists and other novelty petit-bourgeois philosophies that has nothing to offer the proletariat but distractions from its own class terrain.
Not sure how that was
Not sure how that was uncalled for Zimmerwald? Its a serious issue, where does criticism end and abuse begin? Is it all in what the offended party perceives? Are there any objective criteria? How many times have we seen a debate degenerate into a contest of hurt feelings? It seems to me this is a major barrier to debate.
The last sentence could be
The last sentence could be read, and I did read it, as "you are right now allowing your feelings to get hurt and crying attack at every perceived offense; thus little debate is possible with you right now." Perhaps that was not your intent, but I found that comment unnecessarily offensive.
For the record, I agree with your first point.
I didn't mean that as direct
I didn't mean that as direct response to Anarchosyndicaliste, but as a general point. However, how exactly would you interpret his response to the criticism of Magnon's political weaknesses? Who gets to decide if that is an unwarranted attack or just critical analysis in a fraternal debate?
fair critic vs fraternal debate
Who gets to decide if that is an unwarranted attack or just critical analysis in a fraternal debate?
May be those who participate to the debate ?
I mean if a debate is a discussion, each party of the discussion may just listen 30 seconds to the other one, just to see how it reacts and what it thinks ?
Another point may be the fact that to "strike" the other into the discussion with unilateral and massive arguments, that you can not discuss in fact because they are postulate, there begins the problem.
I mean where i read "The 'Marxist Method' or 'Marxist Science', Historical Materialism, is the most potent weapon in the arsenal of the working class. It not only gives us an understanding of the past and the present, but also a perspective for the future.", it is clear that the space for discussion is closed. There is nothing we can discuss here. You have THE truth, that can not be discussed.
(BTW this is anti scientific : a scientist spirit is first of all somebody that doub of everything, and that do not make confusion betwenn theory (hypothesis) and reality ...)
And just after arrives the second layer of the attack the flamming/slandering : if you want to discuss about that then it means you are a "postmodernist" ...
No, I am not "postmodern" because i am not in this relativity shit you rightly pointed out. So if i believe in certain values (internationalism, or more precisely anationalism, refusal of representation, self activity of workers, abolition of property, and so on) i also think that the workers emancipation will be made by workers them selves, and not by anachists nor marxists. So the workers movement is still to be invented, and it will take influences from many sources ... hope to be clear english is not my native language)
It is also a question of vocabulary
To complete the previous post, may be is it also a question of vocabulary ?
When I read a sentence like :
We have seen the absolute priority which Marx and Engels, and all the healthy proletarian elements in the International, gave to the defence of working class principles of functioning in the struggle against organizational anarchism.
http://en.internationalism.org/node/3744
well i don't think that to be considered as an "unhealthy proletarian element" is not necessary a compliment or congratulation ...
This unilateral vision of workers movement history, in which marxists (and especially only your tendancy) is always right while all the universe is absolutely wrong from A to Z, I think here begins the disrespect : because there is equality in the discussion, you don't consider we are on the same level. You are above, and the rest of humanity (not only anarchists) are below ...
Typo
Last sentence should read (sorry)
because there is NO equality in the discussion, you don't consider we are on the same level. You are above, and the rest of humanity (not only anarchists) are below ...
What discussion?
Anarchosyndicaliste-These comment sections are open to the general public- not just ICC members. You seem to be under the impression that all of these comments are by ICC members- many are not (including mine). I'm responding to you as an individual. You've made statements and opinions that others, and I, have responded to with our own. You seem very upset that you have been wronged in some fashion- you are free to express what you think. But you also have to be able to accept that someone else may not agree with you. I don't believe all opinions are equal. You have just as much a chance to argue your point, but are choosing not to.
Language barrier
The language barrier does seem to be a problem.
Groups like 'Socialism or Barbarism', the 'Situationist International', the Frankfurt School, etc inspired a large number of so-called "Post-Marxists", "Marxologists", etc. These groups and ideas have created extremely anti-working class, petit-bourgeois pop-leftist philosophies. The idea to abandon the history of the workers movement and Marxism in the same of a revolution 'beyond Marxism' against the 'Boredom of modern life' and so on were a fad or trend for awhile (to some extent still are). Thats what I meant with the term 'postmodernist/modernist' as in the petit-bourgeois art movement.
Something that gets lost often times is that, if I'm understanding them correctly, the ICC articles that talk about anarchism, Trotskyism, etc as unhealthy for the proletariat, bourgeois, etc it refers to the organizations and the ideologies for specific reasons- it isn't about the people in those organizations. The average worker involved in a Trotskyist or anarchist etc organization is interested in the same things left communists are, driven by the same impulses and desires.
Marxism as a science
"So if you want to remain on scientific level, you have to update your method : the "marxist method" is based on the science of his time (determinism, Newton, Laplace and that kind of stuff) But since then science evolved a lot ... Science of today is non determinist, non linear (have you heard about Chaos theory for instance ? How does it fit with Marxism ?). So marxism - as a science - is not anymore relevent. "
I don't go with all of the stuff about Marxism as a science at all, but just on the point of determinism, modern theoretical physics does seem to see the universe as deterministic, and chaos theory seems to have been superseded.
Devrim
Re. Marxism as Sciecne
I don't think ICC consider Marxism as science. If I recall well ICC had written a text to debunk the idea that marxism is science like physics or chemistry. I think ICC consider marxism as a weapon of the working class.
No doubt there have been great many new discoveries in science since the days of marx. But have these invalidated the idea of dialectical materialism, of reality not being a thing but a process of coming into being and passing away, of changes in quantity leading to changes in quality...
In fact the opposite is true.
Some of the greatest discoveries have validated these from the smallest to the largest scale... Although Einstein himself was initially reluctant to accept it, his theoretical discoveries led to the now standard view that universe itself has a beginning and is dynamic and is constantly changing... Another great discovery in cosmology, that of inflationary universe, seems to be even a bigger validation of change in quantity leading to dramatic change in quality ... in this case an Instantaneous expansion of universe.. leading to Instantaneous fall in temp leading to splitting of the original unified forces into separate forces ....
I don't agree that left
I don't agree that left communists always see their own tendency as right and others as, by nature, wrong. In the period after the Russian Revolution, left communists maintained very strong illusions in the nature of the state that was developing in Russia. On this point, many anarchists were much clearer about the nasty potential embodied in the Russian state in the context of the defeat of the revolutionary wave. If you remember the scene in the movie Reds where Jack Reed was debating the fate of the revolution with Emma Goldman (albeit a highly fictionalized scene); it was Goldman who was much more clear about the degeneration that was happening, while Reed clung to his illusions. Of course, Goldman's perspective was still marred by simplistic anti-authoritarianism; she was in the end right about what was happening in Russia.
I think that's the point
I think that's the point Anarchosyndicalite is making, Anon, and the question us folks on the "other side" of the debate must address. If Goldman can come to the correct conclusion and clearly to boot, then how can the methods she used be "simplistic" or wrong?
Its a good question. I think
Its a good question. I think that anarchism was able to appreciate the degeneration of the Russian Revolution somewhat earlier than left communists, precisely because of their anti-authoritarianism, while some left communists were still caught up in the moment and could not see the trees for the forest. However, in drawing a balance sheet of the experience 1917 to 1927, it was the left communists--because they remained committed to a Marxist historical analysis that were able to draw the lessons of the period, while many anarchists eventually denounced the entire thing as an exercise in state domination and control.
Good quesitons and replies
To Mike (and everybody) :
"You seem to be under the impression that all of these comments are by ICC members- many are not (including mine)."
You are right, thanks to remind me on this point.
About : "I don't believe all opinions are equal."
Me neither. But precisely, if it is a question of opinion, it is subjective. It means that there is nothing scientific in that ... Marxism and anarchisms are different opinions. There is no scientific proof that what we claim for may be better that capitalism. (even if we can sincerly think it would be hardly worst ...). It is our opinion, and i think our opinion is right, and the capitalists' opinion is wrong.
I don't know if all the anonymous are the same but :
"I don't agree that left communists always see their own tendency as right " and after "[even if anarchism was able to appreciate the degeneration of the Russian Revolution somewhat earlier than left communists], in drawing a balance sheet of the experience 1917 to 1927, it was the left communists"
See what i mean ?
"I think that's the point Anarchosyndicalite is making, Anon, and the question us folks on the "other side" of the debate must address. If Goldman can come to the correct conclusion and clearly to boot, then how can the methods she used be "simplistic" or wrong?"
yes ! How, with a wrong method, anarchists could have come to a correct conclusion ? By some kind of divine intervention or by chance may be ?
"while many anarchists eventually denounced the entire thing as an exercise in state domination and control."
And - finally - it wasn't ?
I mean i don't want to remake the game "marxism vs anarchism" in this chronological style : "from 1900 to 1914 this one was right, but from 1914 to 1917 it was the other, and from 1917 to 1921 GOAL ! it was the other party in the game, etc ..."
Game over : all the parts have lost the game ! All the revolutionary currents of the XX century just failed, we all were wrong. Can we learn together from those failures ?
To Devrim :
"modern theoretical physics does seem to see the universe as deterministic, and chaos theory seems to have been superseded."
may be (i am not a specialist) but as you point it it is THEORITICAL physics. So only a theroy, a theory means that there is a doubt about its validity, it may be wrong also ...
So if marxism (as anarchism) are only theories, it means that they may be wrong, and there conclusion may be totally false ... but we accept this part of uncertainity and make the experience.
Are left communists ready to accept the idea that may be their theory is just false and that all the intellectual construction they made is just wrong ? But it is not an issue for them, as they are willing to try the experience ?
"universe itself has a beginning and is dynamic and is constantly changing."
So in this universe everything is constantly changing ... but revolutionnary theory, that will be Marxism for ever and ever till the end of the times ?
I think that the theory of
I think that the theory of chaos has hardly been addressed and could hold important theoretical implications for the perspective of communism. Chaos theory doesn't seem to be a theory about chaos but basically self-organisation with unpredictability.
Personally I don't think that it matters whether you call the theoretical basis of the communist revolution scientif or not - as long as a scientific approach is taken to it. Otherwise everybody's "right".
On determinism - I'm not entirely sure what's meant by this. But I do know that a scientific approach to the development of humanity over millions of years up to and including civilisation, sees the independent development of almost everything coming from conscious human thought.
Anarchosyndicaliste, you can
Anarchosyndicaliste, you can hardly be surprised that in the majority of cases, left communists see left communists as right against anarchists. Why is this so surprising or disturbing to you? Are anarchists wrong to believe they are right? I don't get the point you are making.
Having the "right" method is hardly a guarantee of infaliability, because it still needs to be applied in a given context. Marxism is not a religion. It doesn't surprise me at all that some anarchists were quicker to diagnose the ills of the RR than left communists, but let's be honest, many anarchists didn't see it clearly either.
"may be (i am not a
"may be (i am not a specialist) but as you point it it is THEORITICAL physics. So only a theroy, a theory means that there is a doubt about its validity, it may be wrong also ..."
Yes, it may well be wrong, but it seems to be the current 'vogue' in the physics community. When we say something is only a theory, we should remember that the word 'theory' has two meanings in English. The 'Theory of Gravity' is only a theory, yet I wouldn't advise somebody test it by stepping out of a fifth floor window. In this case you are right. It is only a theory and one not accepted by everyone at that.
You are probably unaware of this as English is not your native language, but the phrase 'only a theory' is the buzzword of the anti-Darwinian religious right in the US.
"So if marxism (as anarchism) are only theories, it means that they may be wrong, and there conclusion may be totally false ... but we accept this part of uncertainity and make the experience.
Are left communists ready to accept the idea that may be their theory is just false and that all the intellectual construction they made is just wrong ?"
Yes, I am a left communist, and a member of the ICC, and I accept that we could be wrong.
Devrim
Agree with Devrim that there
Agree with Devrim that there are elements of the religious right that argue against science and its theoretical aspects. You could have a position that says agriculture came from material conditions and the development of human consciousness or you could say it was brought to earth by God or aliens. Even though the latter was probably more popular, it doesn't, from a working class point of view, put it on a similar par with the first view.
Science (or sciences) and its development should be embraced by the working class. And all the conditions of the struggle of the working class are scientific inasmuch as they can constantly be tested against reality.
Science is doubt
Doubt is a key point in the scientific method.
Are anarchists wrong to believe they are right?
Yes. If they believe TO BE right, then it is the beginnng of the end. On they contrary i think they should believe that they may be right ...
The failure of the XX century revolutions (russian a spanish) is precisely because at a time revolutionnaries (or at least the majority) didn't have any doubt about the fact they were right, and didn't hear the voices that told them they were just going in a wrong direction ...
you can hardly be surprised that in the majority of cases, left communists see left communists as right against anarchists.
Well, first, here i am not talking about ALL the left communists, but about ICC. ICC is not all the left communists, some others exist outside.
Second, regarding some other left communists, they are not all in the same mood than ICC regarding other opinions. I mean also, the ICC says now to be for a new culture of debate. But if ICC will enter the debate with the certainity into his superiority over the others with whom it will engage the discussion, so there is no discussion possible. Because it will be not a discussion but a battle by ICC to win over the others and try to catch them ...
let's be honest, many anarchists didn't see it clearly either.
Let s be honnest : the IWA has been created in 1922 (but the first preparatory meeting was in december 1920 ... ) by the remaining anarchosyndicalist organisations worldwide (i mean those who didn't disapear because of WWI or because of joining blindely the Red International) who were opposed both to social democrats and bolcheviks dictators.
Except IWW (which is not anarchosyndicalist by industrialist union), all the organisations that were represented in the profintern meeting in Moscou in summer 1921 and that have after repudiated it, participated to the IWA creation in 1922 : Federacion Regional Obrera Agentina (80 000 members), Federacion Regional Obrera Uruguay (unknown number), Swedish SAC (30 000 members), USI Italia (125 000 members), spanish CNT (125 000 members).
Cumulated with others, as the anarchosyndicalist tendancy of french CSR ( 15 000 members), German FAUD (some 30 000 members), dutch NAS (20 000), Norsk Syndicalist Fédération (unkmown figures), Confédéraçao Geral Del Trabajo de portugal (CGT) (100 000 members), the rough number of IWA sections member of that time was more than 570 000 people, mainly anarchists.
Of course, you can think that 570 000 people are not many regarding the total human population, but regarding the organised anarchist movement of that time i think they were almost all there... So, to be honnest, it is fall to say that "many didn't see it clearly either.".
Particular subjects
It is only possible to find out the 'right' or 'better' analysis or theory between opposing viewpoints through debate. The 'nature' or 'being' of thoughts and opinions is irrelevant. Left communists use the method of historical materialism to understand past and current situations and how to interpret them. Through this they arrive at opinions that can be backed up by the real experiences of the working class (for example the idea that all unions are instruments of capital and cannot be revolutionary). The only way to arrive at who is 'right' or who has the 'better' analysis is to present your opinion and debate the topic. I'm sure anyone who participates on these comment boards would be happy to debate you on anything you'd like.
The "its just a theory" line
The "its just a theory" line is also very pronounced in American culture in general. Its often used as an expression of anti-intellectualism to denigrate abstract thinking about the world as opposed to pragmatic folsky knowledge. Its one example of the false democratism of American culture.
Anarchosyndicaliste, I still don't understand where you are coming from. Revolutionary organizations have a program and position they defend. They don't pretend to be neutral in the academic sense of examining a marketplace of ideas. This obviously doesn't square with your epistemology of doubt. How do you understand the relationship between science, Marxism and anarchism?
Where do I come from ... ?
Where do I come from ? I come from "workers's anarchism", a practice ideology developped by Argentinian FORA in the early 1900.
it has been - as far as i konw - in the workers history one of the few (if not the only ...) real mass organization with a strong revolutionnary commitment. (all the other organizations has been only minority of workers or organisations with revolutionnary minorities, even in Germany (and don't talk about Russia and bolcheviks ...). Even the so called "2 millions of CNT Members in spain 36" weren't : some extra million joined after the revolution sparkled - so they were "soft belly" revolutionnaries (this explains that ...), and inside CNT not all were anarchists as CNT wasn't an ideological organisation )
FORA is - as far as i know - one of the few organisations that succeded into making a general strike in 1917, that forces the governement NOT to enter into the war. (i am waiting to see any marxist group, armed with science of historical materialism, achieving the same result ...).
(just to be clear it has been BEFORE the Russian revolution so don't sing the song that they have been inspired by the Russian Red Sun Shine ...)
Also, FORA was absolutely opposed to any unions because the already seen in early 1910's that "all unions are instruments of capital and cannot be revolutionary". ( a practical evidence of this "anti unionism" is that FORA's local groups weren't union, but "worker's societies (sociedad obrera)).
It takes no more than 10 years to the Left Communists to arrive at the exact same position "against the union" for the same reasons... But it is true that Left communists were backed with the method of historical materialist, that gave them a great advantage that the anarchists and their legendary weaknesses couldn't have :-)
FORA also applied their theory on large scale, with mass strikes and movements, that have not been (as far as i know) the case of left communism, who never experienced directly their theory on the field of class struggle. But may be I am wrong and you could give me some exemple of real mass movements inspired in conscience by left Communism ?
Then, to continue with my pedigree, completed the FORA substrate with some pinches (if not good handfulls ) of "classical anarchosyndicalism", concillism and situationnism, an may be you could have a picture of my background. This is what we call "anarchosyndicalism" (the only english text available as far as I know that draw the picture of actual anarchosyndicalisme is the Brighton Solfed pamphlet on "anarchosyndicalism in the XXI century".
Even if i don't share everything, especially at the end the tactic of entering into TUC Unions that i am sure it will be a failure, i think it is a good introduction for a debate : http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century)
Revolutionary organizations have a program and position they defend. They don't pretend to be neutral in the academic sense of examining a marketplace of ideas.
Yes, exactely. They are NOT neutral. That is why revolutionnary organisations are NOT scientific bodies ... They look at the reality from a biaised perspective (if not distorted ...), the ideological perspective.
The "its just a theory" line is also very pronounced in American culture in general.
May be. I am not american so i don't know.
And so what ? Is is false ? Does the fact that this sentence is used by someones we fight against, and in a different context, makes it wrong ? If a stalinist claims that "after rain comes the sun", will we stop to considering it as true ?
If you consider yes, may be you should stop using the reference to communism, regarding the number of nuts that uses it for making bullshit ! (and you should also consider stopping to quote Lenine's references in a positive meaning, it would be a very good idea i think :-) ))
I am not an anti-intellectual. But for sure, I am an anti- "intellectualist" (by intellectualist i mean a "poser with attitude", if you see what i mean ? We have that in European culture, i am pretty sure it exists also in the american one ?).
its often used as an expression of anti-intellectualism to denigrate abstract thinking about the world as opposed to pragmatic folsky knowledge.
They just forget one thing : "anti intelluctualism" is also just a theory ! :-)
(the same with people that claim they don't do ideology because they don't have time for that, we need to be pragmatic, blablabla. But the "bread and butter anti-ideology theory" is also an ideology ... :-))
How do you understand the relationship between science, Marxism and anarchism
Revolutionnary theory is not a science. It is an opinion. Because human being are not "robots".
Communism (our common goal) is not a question of necessity, but of contingency.
Right / wrong
The only way to arrive at who is 'right' or who has the 'better' analysis is to present your opinion and debate the topic.
I think only the result of class struggle (or History ?) can decide it, not some debates here or elsewere.
I mean, the result of the last century of revolutionnaries theory is that we all were wrong, both marxists and anarchists. May be we should have the humility to recognize it ? This lack of humility is something that - to my feeling - caracterize the ICC material, and more specifically the the french ICC (CCI) propaganda (which is the one i am more familiar with). It is true that the english production of ICC, on this forum but not only, does not have the same tone.
ICC itself recognize it which talks about monolihtism and sectarianism in ICC (in The culture of debate: A weapon of the class struggle), even if it is still too "shy" to be convincing.
ICC beat the shit against anarchism during 35 years, so it will need more than a small article to demonstrate they really mean what they wrote... (there is no love in se itself, only love proofs :-) or to quote Engels "the only proof of the pudding is that you can eat it ..;")
To finish with a Liebniecht quote : some defeat has been much greater victories for class struggle than some vicotries.
So we dont have to fear to be wrong or to be defeated to pass to action, otherwise we would be paralysed and will stay only in the etheral spheres of pure ideas ...
We are not idealist but materialist, aren't we ?
Right / wrong
The only way to arrive at who is 'right' or who has the 'better' analysis is to present your opinion and debate the topic.
I think only the result of class struggle (or History ?) can decide it, not some debates here or elsewere.
I mean, the result of the last century of revolutionnaries theory is that we all were wrong, both marxists and anarchists. May be we should have the humility to recognize it ? This lack of humility is something that - to my feeling - caracterize the ICC material, and more specifically the the french ICC (CCI) propaganda (which is the one i am more familiar with). It is true that the english production of ICC, on this forum but not only, does not have the same tone.
ICC itself recognize it which talks about monolihtism and sectarianism in ICC (in The culture of debate: A weapon of the class struggle), even if it is still too "shy" to be convincing.
ICC beat the shit against anarchism during 35 years, so it will need more than a small article to demonstrate they really mean what they wrote... (there is no love in se itself, only love proofs :-) or to quote Engels "the only proof of the pudding is that you can eat it ..;")
To finish with a Liebniecht quote : some defeat has been much greater victories for class struggle than some victories.
So we dont have to fear to be wrong or to be defeated to pass to action, otherwise we would be paralysed and will stay only in the etheral spheres of pure ideas ...
We are not idealist but materialist, aren't we ?