espero 7 – Die neue Sommerausgabe 2023 16:58 Jun 25 7 comments Hier ist sie: Die espero-Sommerausgabe 2021! 18:20 Jun 16 15 comments David Graeber, anthropologist and author of Bullshit Jobs, dies aged 59 00:24 Sep 06 7 comments Poder e Governação 02:58 May 17 2 comments Against Anarcho-Liberalism and the curse of identity politics 18:34 Jan 14 4 comments more >> |
Recent articles by Wayne Price
Search author name words: Wayne Price Malatesta’s Revolutionary Anarchism in British Exile 2 comments An Anarchist View of Trotsky’s "Transitional Program" 3 comments The Joy of Alex Comfort 1 comments Recent Articles about International Anarchist movementAnarchists in Rojava: Revolution is a struggle in itself Oct 04 23 An Attempted Marxist-Anarchist Dialogue Oct 03 23 A Guide to Anarcho-Syndicalism and Libertarian Socialism Aug 03 23 Are the Alternatives Really Socialist-Anarchism or Barbarism?
international |
anarchist movement |
opinion / analysis
Sunday April 25, 2010 14:30 by Wayne Price - US-NEFAC (Personal opinion) drwdprice at aol dot dot com
Is a Workers’ Revolution Necessary to Prevent Catastrophe? Responds to arguments that it is not necessary to show that capitalism leads to social and ecological catastrophe in order to be a revolutionary anarchist. A statement on the nature of the period and the economic crisis was published by US-NEFAC (US-Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists) (1). It resulted in a lot of discussion on at least one site (e.g., Anarchist Black Cat). While the majority of those who accessed that` site checked that they agreed with the statement mostly or somewhat, most of those who bothered to write a comment expressed varying degrees of disagreement. I am going to summarize the discussion, as I understand it, and make some remarks. The Future is Unpredictable….Against this viewpoint, opponents made essentially three arguments. First, it was denied that it was possible to make such predictions with any confidence. Sure, things might get worse, but they also might get better. Who could say? After all the Great Depression and World War II were followed by a prolonged period of relative prosperity, from 1947 to about 1970. Throughout the Cold War, the big imperialists avoided nuclear war. And perhaps the international bourgeoisie will wise up and do something about the environment and energy.The analysis of the downward slide toward destruction is based on Marxist economics (or, more precisely, on Marx’s critique of political economy). A humanistic, libertarian-democratic, interpretation of Marxism overlaps with class-struggle anarchism. The analysis is also based on the study of ecology and energy, integrated with Marxism and with anarchism (5). Some of our critics reject Marxist economics particularly, and others do not seem to know much about it or care to learn. Obviously it would take much more space and time than I have here to discuss the labor theory of value, the nature of surplus value, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the causes of business cycles, the epoch of monopoly capital and imperialism (and imperialist wars), as well as the causes of the limited prosperity after World War II and why this had to end. But neither have the critics spent time in expounding what is wrong with these conceptions. Even integrated into an ecological awareness, these concepts do not lead to specific predictions, comparable to the natural sciences. Over the last decades, I have felt like a geologist who is predicting an eventual huge earthquake in California (the “big one”), and urges people to build more safely—but who cannot predict when the earthquake will occur—in a month, a year, a decade, or many decades. Social predictions are especially uncertain, since, unlike geological strata, classes are composed of people with consciousness and the ability to make choices (“free will”). But it has been possible to say, with reasonable confidence, that social earthquakes are coming. The alternate view is scientifically nihilistic. It denies that groups of human beings act in repeatable patterns (“laws” or tendencies) about which we may generalize into probabilistic predictions. This belief in unpredictability is consistent with a liberal view: perhaps the state can, after all, be used to end exploitation. Who knows? Perhaps capitalism can peacefully and gradually evolve into libertarian socialism? Supposedly it cannot be predicted otherwise. Unfortunately such views disarm us before capitalist disaster. Only a Moral Judgment is Required….This leads into the second argument used against our view. Some say that we do not need to know that capitalism is going to cause catastrophe unless a revolution is made. It is enough, they say, to judge that anarchist-communism would be morally superior to capitalism. Among other anarchists, this view is held by Murray Bookchin and his followers.I do not deny that libertarian socialism would be better than capitalism as a way for human beings to live and work. I insist on it. I reject any arguments—particularly from Marxists—that it unnecessary to make such a moral evaluation. But a moral argument is not enough, not by itself. It could just as well be used to justify a gradualist, reformist, program—and it often has. Once we have decided on a social goal, for moral reasons, we have to then decide how to reach this goal—by reformism or by revolution. This requires as objective as possible an analysis of how the system operates and what can be done to change it. To take a revolutionary position requires something more than only moral judgment. It requires a belief that a revolution would not only be good but that it would be necessary. A revolution, even the most nonviolent, would involve mass struggle, suffering, bloodshed, and destruction. It is irresponsible to advocate revolution unless we believe that it is absolutely necessary. Nor would many people join one unless they were convinced that they had to. And they would be right not to. It is Enough to Know Workers’ Consciousness….Another argument which was raised also claims that it is not necessary to know the nature of the period or the tendency of capitalism toward self-destruction. What is necessary, this argument says, is to know the level of popular struggle, what issues excite workers, and what a revolutionary minority can do to join in popular struggles.This argument is not so much wrong as one-sided. There are two possible unilateral positions which a revolutionary minority may take, both wrong. One is know-it-all, feeling that it is suffient to know that socialist revolution is necessary. Then the revolutionaries go to preach to the unenlightened masses, telling them The Truth. As is well known, this is realistic picture of various sctarians. The reciprocal error is to start from wherever the people are and build a program only as an elaboration of popular consciousness. It is certainly true that revolutionaries need to know what nonrevolutionary workers and oppressed people are thinking. We need to know how to talk to them about our ideas. But we cannot just expand on their current consciousness. Popular consciousness is a very mixed bag, with progressive and reactionary ideas jumbled together. Working people are influenced by many sources, including the mass media, the church, and schools. These inculcate reactionary ideas along with positive beliefs in democracy, freedom, and fairness. Workers develop ideas based on their experiences, which include pushes toward radical consciousness, such as their oppression and their working collectively with others. But they also have experiences which push in other directions, such as job distinctions, some apparently decent jobs, demoralizing overwork or unemployment, etc. All-too-often these lead to racism, conservatism, sexism, superpatriotism, and religious superstition. But these can change drastically and quickly during periods of upheaval. The revolutionary program cannot be based on workers’ current consciousness. That effort has historically been called “tail-endism” or “rank-and-filism.” That is the approach, for example, of the US Solidarity group. Rather than sectarianism, in practice this is what is wrong with most of the Left. Instead, the revolutionary program is based on the objective conditions, which means on the need for a socialist-anarchist revolution. In fact, the socialist-anarchist revolution is the program, the whole of the program. But to express the need for revolution requires breaking it up into specific planks, specific demands, slogans, and proposals. And how to explain these planks, demands, slogans, and proposals is based on the interaction between the objective analysis and popular consciousness. The revolutionary minority must be in a constant dialogue with working people—especially (but not only) with the most militant, active, and radicalized workers and youth. As brief examples, faced with an assault on workers’ wages and conditions on the job, we should undoubtedly defend the workers’ demands for better pay, no givebacks, better conditions, and union protections—standard reforms. But we also propose that workers should make additional demands: that supposedly unprofitable businesses and industries, instead of be allowed to cut workers’ wages and/or firing workers, should be taken away from the bosses (expropriation) by the state. They should be turned over to the workers and local communities to run democratically. We add that they should not become competitive producers’ cooperatives but should coordinate with each other to create useful products and to improve the environment. To support workers’ goals, even the most mild reform goals, we support union strikes and boycotts. But we also argue that mass picketing, plant occupations, and general strikes are needed. (And so on.) When and how to say such things depends on circumstances…but they must be said. This is precisely the issue which divides anarchists and libertarian Marxists into two tendencies, those who believe that revolutionary libertarian socialists should organize themselves into distinct political groups (with clear, revolutionary, programs), and those who want them to dissolve into the broader movement. It is because the program is not simply the sum total of the workers’ demands that a special organization needs to be organized around it. Otherwise, why bother? A revolutionary approach is a complex interaction of various aspects: objective prediction, moral judgment, necessity, and response to worker’s concerns. Nothing by itself will be enough. Only everything is enough. References (1) US-NEFAC (2010). “Nature of the Period; Background and Perspectives” http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16222 (2) Salzman, Lorna (5/3/2010). “An Open Letter and Appeal to Bill McKibbin and 350.org” Advt. The Nation, v. 290, no. 17; p. 19. (3) Price, Wayne (5/28/2010). http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16212 (4) Price, Wayne (6/1/2009). http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13296 (5) Bookchin, Murray (1980). Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal-Buffalo: Black Rose Books. Foster, John Bellamy (2000). Marx’s Ecology; Materialism and Nature. NY: Monthly Review Press. written for www.Anarkismo.net |
Front pageSupport Sudanese anarchists in exile Joint Statement of European Anarchist Organizations International anarchist call for solidarity: Earthquake in Turkey, Syria and Kurdistan Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy 19 de Julio: Cuando el pueblo se levanta, escribe la historia International anarchist solidarity against Turkish state repression Declaración Anarquista Internacional por el Primero de Mayo, 2022 Le vieux monde opprime les femmes et les minorités de genre. Leur force le détruira ! Against Militarism and War: For self-organised struggle and social revolution Declaração anarquista internacional sobre a pandemia da Covid-19 Anarchist Theory and History in Global Perspective Capitalism, Anti-Capitalism and Popular Organisation [Booklet] Reflexiones sobre la situación de Afganistán South Africa: Historic rupture or warring brothers again? Death or Renewal: Is the Climate Crisis the Final Crisis? Gleichheit und Freiheit stehen nicht zur Debatte! Contre la guerre au Kurdistan irakien, contre la traîtrise du PDK Meurtre de Clément Méric : l’enjeu politique du procès en appel |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (3 of 3)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3this is rather good. i especially liked the conclusion about basically the two different camps of anarchists/libertarian marxists being those who choose specific groups with clear programs and those who prefer deferring to the popular consciousness like the rank and file-ism of council communists...
very interesting!
"Some of our critics reject Marxist economics particularly ... neither have the critics spent time in expounding what is wrong with these conceptions."
The following works explain why Marxist economics are flawed:
Marx: A Radical Critique by Alan Carter
Marx After Sraffa by Ian Steedman
The chapter on Marxism in Steve Keen's Debunking Economics
Iaozi: I am glad you found it interesting. However, council communists were divided on the issue of forming special revolutionary organizations, distinct from mass organizations. Some were for it, some against, and some were uncertain. Beyond that, it is common to criticize council communists for being sectarian, because they rejected the united front in principle and were opposed to working inside the reformist labor unions in practice. It is true, however, that they were in fact capitulalting to rank-and-filism in practice in a number of ways.
Joe: Thanks for the references. Of course, there are many "works [which] explain why Marxist economics are flawed." It is not difficult to find attacks on Marxist economics. But what do they propose as alternatives? I have not read any of these three references, but in general what is proposed is some form of standard bourgeois economics, neoclassical or Keynesian or whatever. I have not seen any "anarchist economics," as a proposed analysis of capitalist economy (not as a proposal for a new society, in which anarchism *is* superior to Marxism).