Anarchist Communism, neither left nor right but social revolution-Why do you think ?

[Red Dreadnought]

Although being in the way of "left communist" and "marxism", I support the nuclear arguee of this leaflet of Anarchist Federation of North.

Anarchist Communism, neither left nor right but social revolution


Why we Are Not On The Left
Anarchist Communism, neither left nor right but social revolution
Capitalism's temporary mask of invincibility has once again fallen. Ten years of relative growth and alleged prosperity has let us to where capitalists always lead us, crisis, unemployment, environmental disaster and war. The illusion of sustainability and the absence of recession in the west until now has been bought by the ruthless exploitation of the working class in China, India and other parts of the ‘developing’ world. The historic question has never gone away, though at the moment becomes clearer by the day. Capitalist barbarism or its overthrow, war or revolution.

The left feels resurgent, and is rallying with a sense of urgency and vigor, calling for unity to combat capitalism's excesses. We are not with them, because we are not part of the ‘left’ wing of capitalism. Capitalism is not our enemy because of its excesses, conflict, exploitation, famine, and destruction. These are its inevitable symptoms, not exceptional, but central to its functioning. Capitalism threatens us all because of its normality. Its reduction of us to individual producers and consumers, smashing our collective instincts, exploiting our work, our created isolation and our dreams. How better to oppress and manipulate us for all its other self serving aims, nationalism, profit and the state.

For all its apparent anger and clarity, whatever the noble intention (real or otherwise), the left will be capitalism's last hope. Its belief that the working class can never reach more than a trade union consciousness, that we need the leader(dictator)ship of the party, that by getting us involved in the charade of democracy it will get to lead or seize power and create the workers state, then watch it ‘wither away’, actively opposes the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

Capitalism is not a system of management, it is a social relationship based on the operation of the law of value, the pursuit of profit through exploitation, the accumulation of the labour of others. Its structures: the nation, corporation, wage labour, state and government are its means to this end. Revolution is not a change of management, it is the utter rejection and destruction of that relationship and the dispossessing of those who benefit from it. Anything that allows the state, money, the operation of the law of value to continue is counter revolutionary.

As anarchists, we reject the right and the left of ‘capitalist management’. We believe that revolutionary demands can not be diluted. Reformist demands are dishonest and derail the class struggle. We believe that only the working class is capable of developing a revolutionary consciousness through its autonomous self activity in the course of its class struggle. We are part of this class, not separate from, or outside it. We do not ‘intervene’ externally as leaders, we participate in solidarity as equals. The state is not reformable, nor usable. It is the political instrument of bourgeois class oppression, its abolition is central along with the abolition of money, the market and the wages system.

We are neither on the left nor of it, and calls for unity are calls to save capitalism in another guise. Only social revolution offers humanity the last chance to create a truly human society, neither left nor right, but liberated and free.

[h0m0revolutionary]

To put that leaflet into context, we put it out for distribution during a period last year when all the left, or rather, much of it, congregated under the banner of 'Convention of the Left' - which included trotskyists, stalinists, greens - and every type of undesireable tiny 10 person sects in between.

We didn't think an alliance of self-proclaimed revolutionaries and social democrats was worth an intervention, so wanted to explain why not.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If that is the attitude of anarchism, then it too is likely to maintain a tiny sect on the fringe of real political change.

I don't see the problem in aligning with greens, labour movements and democratic socialists, as long as a consensus is reached and goals are agreed.

Less of the dogma, more action and pragmatism if we want to unite under the banner of revolution.
Having said that, there is much good that is expressed in that article. I am a bit of a novice on anarchism. I don't think, thought, that it is one of the more realistic groups on the left, but the ideas of anarchist communism are often, whether they like the label or not, amongst the most 'left communist' group of ideas, and I find them personally inspiring, if not totally realistic.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Burt DemSoc, surely you agree that greens and democratic socialists, by their nature, are not revolutionaries, why then should we allign with them?

We have no problem debating with, working with and being constructive towards revolutionaries, but we don't water down our politics to accomodate liberals in the name of "left unity". Nothing came out of convention of the left, just as we knew it wouldn't. Revolutionaries have nothing in common with social democrats or those who want a cheaper/greener/kinder capitalism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In all fairness, the convention of the left was less a unity cause than one where stalinists, trotskyists and as you say any undesirable sect inbetween were dragged kicking and screaming into a room which had one banner on the door. It wasn't really a cohesive group, hence its failure.

We should not be close minded about greens or DemSocs (no jibes on my name please!). Yes, we would not follow their path, but it would be absurd to say that they cannot bring anything to the table. I bring them up time and again, but I hold Benn and in particular Galloway in high regard, even though they are Democratic Socialists and not part of the revolutionary cause. Galloway, for one, is an excellent proponent of socialism, if not revolution, and the likes of these people are extremely useful allies.

Anybody who wants to see a socialist society should be welcomed. It doesn't mean they have to decide the means towards the end;)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

But as Revolutionary Leftists we recognise the paradox in terms. Socialism can only be established through workers revolution. It cannot be achieved through Reformism, as so called 'Democratic' Socialists will have you believe.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

My point is, they can still contribute to the downfall of capitalism.

I know you will not like to admit it, but if you listen to George Galloway, my excellent example, he is as supportive of Cuba, for instance, and as critical of the Iraq war, of free market economics and of the capitalist elites as any socialist. He is not a revolutionary, but having someone like him on our side would be far more sensible and pragmatic than shunning him and creating a neo-liberal out of a socialist.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Oh lord.

Galloway is a notorious homophobe, complete Stalinist. Supporter of the Chinese "revolution" and the theocracy in Iran. Not to mention nothing but a radical social democrat, who wants a return to the Labour Party of the 60's (and if that doesn't occur a Labour Party Mark II).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That is a pretty subjective analysis of the situation.

I would imagine it unlikely that Galloway is a homophobic, stalinist, maoist, radical social democratic theocrat who supports centralised bureaucratic parliamentary socialism.:rolleyes:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Not to mention he is pro-life.

[ls]

That is a pretty subjective analysis of the situation.

I would imagine it unlikely that Galloway is a homophobic, stalinist, maoist, radical social democratic theocrat who supports centralised bureaucratic parliamentary socialism.:rolleyes:

He also saluted Saddam Hussein, fuck yeah Saddam was practising socialism in gassing them kurds eh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzWNXEtwHUc&feature=related

Forward to 0:35.

[FSL]

Oh lord.

Galloway is a notorious homophobe, complete Stalinist. Supporter of the Chinese "revolution" and the theocracy in Iran. Not to mentionnothing but a radical social democrat, who wants a return to the Labour Party of the 60's (and if that doesn't occur a Labour Party Mark II).


Oh lord, indeed.

[ultraqueercommie]

Oh lord.

Galloway is a notorious homophobe, complete Stalinist. Supporter of the Chinese "revolution" and the theocracy in Iran. Not to mention nothing but a radical social democrat, who wants a return to the Labour Party of the 60's (and if that doesn't occur a Labour Party Mark II).


He is absolutely all those things. As far as Stalinist/China goes, he not only supports what happened under Mao (which is bad enough in itself) he entirely supports the Chinese government now! Hence he sat on the platform of Hands Off China alongside notorious Stalinist, Chair of the Stalin Society and CPGB(ML) Harpal Brar.

He is one of the most notorious homophobes on the British left in that he refused to support Respect campaigning for LGBT liberation and- unfortunately like a large part of the left- covers and apologises for viciously homophobic regimes such as the Iranian regime, Hamas and Hezbollah- all in the name of 'socialism'.

The Convention of the Left was, and was always going to be, a non-starter. For the shear fact that the LRC put conditions on absolutely everything; let alone those who barely even defined themselves as socialists, let alone revolutionaries. It is perfectly fine to campaign alongside such people, but hoping to gain any sort of organisation out of this was highly unlikely and doomed to fall apart- the formation of an organisation between revolutionaries, centrists and reformists inevitably breaks down for the fact that revolutionaries will (or at least should!) argue for a strategy and tactics that completely contradict reformism. Unfortunately such 'unity' has been advocated since the formation of the Second International, and especially since the turn towards such a unity by the Mandelite Fourth International.

As for the AF leaflet it does contain some quite correct home-truths, but people on the far left ARE social revolutionaries who want to overthrow capitalism AND the state- not 'manage' them. Many AFers are council communists and would certainly fit on the left-right spectrum, and so would the majority of the AF who don't see themselves as council communists. They aren't outside that political spectrum, whatever their pretensions, they are just on one of its extreme wings ;)

[RedSonRising]

I think the statement is intended to distinguish Anarchists from reformist parties and organizations that are in themselves part of the capitalist State in one way or another, such as the Social Democrats who propose scrambling to patch up the wounds capitalism inflicts on society as opposed to healing them and stopping the bleeding. It's an important separation to make.

However it seems very indignant, especially in making such assertions as equating leadership with dictatorship, and i think misinterprets the use of right and left. The revolutionary left, consisting of non-anarchist socialists, leninists, marxists, and so on, are not part of the capitalist "left." I see their intent but it comes off as insulting and a bit pretentious in mentioning anarchism as the only ideology to promote social revolution. I can see why they discuss their perceived preference of anarchism (otherwise they wouldn't be anarchists and we would all be same-tendency revolutionaries, wouldn't we?) but it doesn't seem to say much to encourage militancy and coordination among different working-class oriented organizations, which in my opinion is lacking.

[ls]

Oh lord, indeed.

This is expected from someone who simply dismisses the greek anarchist movement, loves the KKE etc. I'm sure you would like old labour to be in power here, of course all the silly leftishists here think that's a wonderful idea and that we need to practice entryism on the labour party, exatract all the socialists out of it and build a new labour party that will win via electoralism (not too disimilar from the "good old days"). Yeah great strategy. :rolleyes:

[blake 3:17]

As for the OP -- the diagnosis is pretty keen, the prescription is pretty useless.

[FSL]

This is expected from someone who simply dismisses the greek anarchist movement, loves the KKE etc. I'm sure you would like old labour to be in power here, of course all the silly leftishists here think that's a wonderful idea and that we need to practice entryism on the labour party, exatract all the socialists out of it and build a new labour party that will win via electoralism (not too disimilar from the "good old days"). Yeah great strategy. :rolleyes:


DEAR DEAR GOD!


You can read into people's minds, freaky!

The comment, since you couldn't decoded it yourself btw, was a sigh to people who 'll use anything as a slur, ignoring its meaning. Like when you want to express a bad view about someone you 'll first call them a Stalinist (necessary), then proceed to mention what's wrong with them, like liking old labor. That of course Stalinists hold no love for parties that always have and still are supporting capitalism is mostly irrelevant. The important thing is saying that person a Stalinist because Stalin is baaad and you 'll always get someone to pat you on the back for sticking it to the man anyway.

[Agnapostate]

However it seems very indignant, especially in making such assertions as equating leadership with dictatorship, and i think misinterprets the use of right and left. The revolutionary left, consisting of non-anarchist socialists, leninists, marxists, and so on, are not part of the capitalist "left." I see their intent but it comes off as insulting and a bit pretentious in mentioning anarchism as the only ideology to promote social revolution. I can see why they discuss their perceived preference of anarchism (otherwise they wouldn't be anarchists and we would all be same-tendency revolutionaries, wouldn't we?) but it doesn't seem to say much to encourage militancy and coordination among different working-class oriented organizations, which in my opinion is lacking.

I'm in general agreement with that. The term "left" is of course derived from French parliamentary seating arrangement, which may create the impression that there's already association with electoral politics involved. However, claiming that liberal and social democrats have a monopoly over the "left" is itself objectionable.

[robbo203]

I think the statement is rather good and spot on in is assessment. Particularly this bit....





For all its apparent anger and clarity, whatever the noble intention (real or otherwise), the left will be capitalism's last hope.



Ultimately the function of the so called revoluionary Left (who are anything but revolutionary) is to help prolong capitalism particularly in its statist form in the guise of the pseudo "workers state". It is clear as daylight that going down this utterly discredited road, with its dogmatic belief in the need for a so called vanguard party, can only ever have one outcome - the creation of a new ruling class to replace the old.

Look what happened to the Soviet Union. Despite the asinine observations of the trotskyists that the revolution was somehow "betrayed" by the leadership, the real problem was having a leadership or vanguard in the first place in the sense of a small minority allegedly wanting to run society on behalf of the majority. Sorry but it cant be done. And who do you think are the main beneficiaries of the overthrow of the Soviet Union? Who have emerged as the oligararchs of contemporary Russia. Thats right - in the main it has been the old nomenklatura who prospered under soviet rule - the very people who naive leftists call the "vanguard" and in whose hands they want to entrust he hopes and the future of the working class

These leftists never learn

[ls]

DEAR DEAR GOD!


You can read into people's minds, freaky!

The comment, since you couldn't decoded it yourself btw, was a sigh to people who 'll use anything as a slur, ignoring its meaning. Like when you want to express a bad view about someone you 'll first call them a Stalinist (necessary), then proceed to mention what's wrong with them, like liking old labor. That of course Stalinists hold no love for parties that always have and still are supporting capitalism is mostly irrelevant. The important thing is saying that person a Stalinist because Stalin is baaad and you 'll always get someone to pat you on the back for sticking it to the man anyway.

That's all irrelevant, I don't use the term Stalinist..ever? Perhaps sourrces I have quoted before have used it, but I'm pretty confident I haven't, if I have at some point I don't intend on doing it again.

Your post really just smacks of petty victimisation, you have declared support before for the KKE? Fact. You have denounced the Greek anarchist movement before? Fact. I am going on facts and not some vague definition of "Stalinists".

The fact is that your last post made it appear as though you like old labour, if you don't then it's pretty fucking obvious people are going to interpret it as though you did. :rolleyes:

[FSL]

That's all irrelevant, I don't use the term Stalinist..ever? Perhaps sourrces I have quoted before have used it, but I'm pretty confident I haven't, if I have at some point I don't intend on doing it again.

Your post really just smacks of petty victimisation, you have declared support before for the KKE? Fact. You have denounced the Greek anarchist movement before? Fact. I am going on facts and not some vague definition of "Stalinists".

The fact is that your last post made it appear as though you like old labour, if you don't then it's pretty fucking obvious people are going to interpret it as though you did. :rolleyes:


The person I quoted was using the term stalinist and was doing so in a completely apolitical manner. Not even to denounce someone as authoritarian but only to add one more bad quality -which one it remained unexplained- to a social democrat. I don't see how one could see what I posted as a support for old Labor.



Yes, I have declared my support for the KKE but denouncing the anarchist movement? I object!
Anarchists are as strong and vibrant as ever, only yesterday I heard of 2 cars being set on fire.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Yes, I have declared my support for the KKE but denouncing the anarchist movement? I object!
Anarchists are as strong and vibrant as ever, only yesterday I heard of 2 cars being set on fire.

Oh i'm glad you've noticed our work. Can't say i've noticed much of you Stalinists at work, but then again i like real life activism and don't manage to get online that often.

[Wanted Man]

This is expected from someone who simply dismisses the greek anarchist movement, loves the KKE etc. I'm sure you would like old labour to be in power here, of course all the silly leftishists here think that's a wonderful idea and that we need to practice entryism on the labour party, exatract all the socialists out of it and build a new labour party that will win via electoralism (not too disimilar from the "good old days"). Yeah great strategy. :rolleyes:

Err, he was saying the exact opposite. Try reading.

[FSL]

Oh i'm glad you've noticed our work. Can't say i've noticed much of you Stalinists at work, but then again i like real life activism and don't manage to get online that often.


Try equating me with Hitler next time.

[ls]

Err, he was saying the exact opposite. Try reading.

Not trying to be an arsehole here, but I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion, if you wanna show me then by all means go ahead.

[Pogue]

I think this is an interesting question. On one hand saying anarchism is neither left nor right could be like trying to fulfill a niche position for the ideology, and being able to deny any of the negative associations of being just another ideology. And also, in terms of what its advocated and how its advocated anarchists appear to be leftists.

But then if you analysed what the likes of the SP, SWP, CPGB-ML, i.e. non-libertarian socialists propose, it is essentially state management of capitalist modes of production and association, a political revolution, whereas as anarchists (and people ideologically close to anarchism) do propose a social revolution, making them fall outside of the left-right paradigm (the paradigm of capitalist politics, essentially).

[Agnapostate]

But then if you analysed what the likes of the SP, SWP, CPGB-ML, i.e. non-libertarian socialists propose, it is essentially state management of capitalist modes of production and association, a political revolution, whereas as anarchists (and people ideologically close to anarchism) do propose a social revolution, making them fall outside of the left-right paradigm (the paradigm of capitalist politics, essentially).

Is that right? I've heard denouncement of the SWP, but as principled Trots they do condemn Stalinism (as they perceive it), and hold the libertarian position that Soviet oligarchical structure was the effective equivalent of Western capitalist structure in its imitation of elitist control.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Is that right? I've heard denouncement of the SWP, but as principled Trots they do condemn Stalinism (as they perceive it), and hold the libertarian position that Soviet oligarchical structure was the effective equivalent of Western capitalist structure in its imitation of elitist control.

You're right. Apart from the adjective "principled"

The SWP are nothing of the sort. They took a third camp position during Vietnam, but cannot do the same today (which leads them to support the Islamic Republican in Iran and reactionary forces like Hezbollah and Hamas). They didn't for a long time call for British troops to withdraw from Northen Ireland and for all their talk fo support for Soviet (workers councils) power, they fetishise the Trade Union Bureaucracy, have very little internal democracy and enter into Popular Front initiatives with the state (StW, UAF etc).

They have a revolutionary platform, indeed, but their actions are reformist. They ought to read their own platform sometime. I would say they should read their programme, but they don't have, apparently it's undemocratic to have one. 0_o

[Red Dreadnought]

Is necessary to asume a dialecthical wiev of the question. Left communists and council communist also think that way: no right, nor left, communists. But they reclame the inheritance of Communist LEFT (that of Italy, Germany, Holland, UK..). Even they (well really us)speak about lefties (trots, stalo or certain tendances of anarchism)like "left of capital".

But it's interesting to understand that concepts like LEFT o RIGHT come from French Revolution. A such a way or argueing is a dialectical need for proletarian revs to go beyond that concepts.

And, why in hell if Stalin or Mitterrand were left, i have to be in the same field? Absolutely NOT

[Wanted Man]

Not trying to be an arsehole here, but I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion, if you wanna show me then by all means go ahead.

The way I read it, he resented the suggestion that "stalinists" are connected to "old labour" in any way. It may be a difference between communist parties in different countries, because the CPB did (do?) put some faith in the Labour Party, whereas communists in Greece and other countries quite clearly oppose the local social-democrats, whether in power or not.