Those anarchists who call themselves communists (and I am among
them) are communist not because they want to impose their specific
way of seeing or believe that it is the only means of salvation, but
because they are convinced, and will remain so unless there is
evidence to the contrary, that the more men and women, united in
comradeship, and the closer their cooperation on behalf of all, the
greater will be the well-being and the freedom that everybody will
enjoy. They believe that even where people are freed from human
oppression they remain exposed to the hostile forces of nature, which
they cannot overcome on their own, but that with the cooperation of
others, they can control and transform into the means of their
well-being. The individual who wished to supply his own material
needs by working alone would be the slave of his labours. A peasant,
for instance, who wanted to cultivate a piece of ground all alone,
would be renouncing all the advantages of cooperation and
condemning himself to a wretched life : no rest, no travel, no study, no
contacts with the outside world .. . and he would not always be able
to appease his hunger.
- Errico Malatesta The Anarchist Revolution
But how you build such a society without imposing your own vision onto others? How would revolutionary anarchists address problems with counterrevolutionaries? Marxists (and I among them) think that a transitional periodm whereby workers' states would establish socialism and eradicate classes is necessary before the state can be abolished.
Anarchists insist upon horizontalism in organizing. They would invoke the misattributed Ghandi quote, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Unfortuantely, spontaneous, horizontal organization has never resulted in a successful revolution. This lesson was hard learned by the Spanish anarchists in 1939.
A movement that self consciously avoids taking power is masochistic. Franco took over Spain because of such masochism. Education for class consciousness is all well and good, but I'm not convinced that spontaneous, horizontal organization will arise without a vanguard party.
Meanwhile, there have been examples of revolutionary workers' states (even though most have failed to hold up against imperialist capitalism). Often anarchists blame authoritarianism for the failures of these states to achieve even the first stages of socialism. The question becomes, how would a vanguard party keep on track with the project of progressively establishing socialism and also preparing for the state to wither away once that eventuality is achieved?
MLs often answer this question by invoking democratic centralism: a cadre leadership that is responsible for addressing the needs and concerns of the proletariat.
Since the fall of the USSR there have been no shortage of theories on what went wrong. Revisionists and trots blame Stalin, Stalinists blame Khrushchev blah blah. What is apparent is that the USSR was curving rightward long before 1991.
Another more concise example of a capitalist communist party is, of course, modern day China. I do think that dialectical materialist analysis is useful here. Both China and USSR had socialist revolutions prior to modernization. The neo-feudal systems in both pre-revolution Russia and China presented favorable material conditions for proletarian uprising. The socialist governments were able to modernize those countries very rapidly due to economic planning. They were then elevated to superpower status. From there, it would appear that nationalism overrode socialism and the allure of neoliberalism and a piece of the global capital pie resulted in the downfall of socialism in those nations.
Those who insist on formal, liberal democracy are those who refuse to distinguish formal freedom from actual freedom. A one party system has the potential to be more democratic than a multiple party parliament, so long as an active civil society is encouraged. Cuba is a good example of this: one ruling party, but participation in civics and the airing of grievances is encouraged. Mariela Castro, the president's daughter, is currently a leader of a protest movement in favor of LGBT rights.
Contrast that with USA where we have formal democracy, but the protests of civil society are largely ignored. Additionally, we are told in school that checks and balances on governmental power are what keep us free, but they're really just what keep us from change. Those checks and balances are part of the way the system perpetuates itself.
A one party system, on the other hand, must adapt to changes in public opinion if they are to stay in power, as there is no protest vote placebo as in a two party system.
them) are communist not because they want to impose their specific
way of seeing or believe that it is the only means of salvation, but
because they are convinced, and will remain so unless there is
evidence to the contrary, that the more men and women, united in
comradeship, and the closer their cooperation on behalf of all, the
greater will be the well-being and the freedom that everybody will
enjoy. They believe that even where people are freed from human
oppression they remain exposed to the hostile forces of nature, which
they cannot overcome on their own, but that with the cooperation of
others, they can control and transform into the means of their
well-being. The individual who wished to supply his own material
needs by working alone would be the slave of his labours. A peasant,
for instance, who wanted to cultivate a piece of ground all alone,
would be renouncing all the advantages of cooperation and
condemning himself to a wretched life : no rest, no travel, no study, no
contacts with the outside world .. . and he would not always be able
to appease his hunger.
- Errico Malatesta The Anarchist Revolution
But how you build such a society without imposing your own vision onto others? How would revolutionary anarchists address problems with counterrevolutionaries? Marxists (and I among them) think that a transitional periodm whereby workers' states would establish socialism and eradicate classes is necessary before the state can be abolished.
Anarchists insist upon horizontalism in organizing. They would invoke the misattributed Ghandi quote, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Unfortuantely, spontaneous, horizontal organization has never resulted in a successful revolution. This lesson was hard learned by the Spanish anarchists in 1939.
A movement that self consciously avoids taking power is masochistic. Franco took over Spain because of such masochism. Education for class consciousness is all well and good, but I'm not convinced that spontaneous, horizontal organization will arise without a vanguard party.
Meanwhile, there have been examples of revolutionary workers' states (even though most have failed to hold up against imperialist capitalism). Often anarchists blame authoritarianism for the failures of these states to achieve even the first stages of socialism. The question becomes, how would a vanguard party keep on track with the project of progressively establishing socialism and also preparing for the state to wither away once that eventuality is achieved?
MLs often answer this question by invoking democratic centralism: a cadre leadership that is responsible for addressing the needs and concerns of the proletariat.
Since the fall of the USSR there have been no shortage of theories on what went wrong. Revisionists and trots blame Stalin, Stalinists blame Khrushchev blah blah. What is apparent is that the USSR was curving rightward long before 1991.
Another more concise example of a capitalist communist party is, of course, modern day China. I do think that dialectical materialist analysis is useful here. Both China and USSR had socialist revolutions prior to modernization. The neo-feudal systems in both pre-revolution Russia and China presented favorable material conditions for proletarian uprising. The socialist governments were able to modernize those countries very rapidly due to economic planning. They were then elevated to superpower status. From there, it would appear that nationalism overrode socialism and the allure of neoliberalism and a piece of the global capital pie resulted in the downfall of socialism in those nations.
Those who insist on formal, liberal democracy are those who refuse to distinguish formal freedom from actual freedom. A one party system has the potential to be more democratic than a multiple party parliament, so long as an active civil society is encouraged. Cuba is a good example of this: one ruling party, but participation in civics and the airing of grievances is encouraged. Mariela Castro, the president's daughter, is currently a leader of a protest movement in favor of LGBT rights.
Contrast that with USA where we have formal democracy, but the protests of civil society are largely ignored. Additionally, we are told in school that checks and balances on governmental power are what keep us free, but they're really just what keep us from change. Those checks and balances are part of the way the system perpetuates itself.
A one party system, on the other hand, must adapt to changes in public opinion if they are to stay in power, as there is no protest vote placebo as in a two party system.
No comments:
Post a Comment