ISO's new article on "contemporary anarchism"

[syndicat]

So i finally got my hands on a copy of the much-anticipated International Socialist Review article on "contemporary anarchism." I will probably write a reply for publication, but for now I'll mention a few comments.

First, I'm not going to say anything about lifestylism a la crimethinc, insurrectos, or the Bookchinites. I take the position that there is an unbridgeable gulf between those "anarchisms" and the anarchism of mass democratic struggle of the working class and the oppressed. I'm only willing to defend social anarchism (AKA libertarian socialism) with class/mass struggle perspective.

The article steps off on the wrong foot right away when it tries to define all anarchism as opposed to "any form of coercive authority." This is incorrect and amounts to an attempt to fudge the distinction between libertarian socialism and individualism. What about a syndicalist union using militant tactics to prevent scabs taking their jobs? If the workers agree collectively to pursue this approach, this is a collective form of exercise of coercive authority.

For social anarchism, what we are opposed to is hierarchical authority, not just authority in general. Hierarchical structures of authority are institutions where power is concentrated in the hands of a relative few, and power is exercized over others who are thus dominated. This can be hierarchical concentration of authority based on property ownership, as with the capitalist class, or on the basis of control over organizational decision-making as in a corporation or the state or other top down structure.

Moreover, a revolutionary transformation of society inevitably involves use of coercive power, excercized by the mass organizations of the working class and oppressed, to sweep aside the dominating classes and their hierarchical institutions, such as the state.

This article is better than previous ISO articles because they are finally beginning to take seriously the distinction between social anarchism with a class struggle perspective -- the historically dominant form of anarchism -- versus the contemporary American brands such as lifestylism, primmies, post-lefts, insurrectos, hyper-individualists, Proudhonian cooperativists.

Revolutionary syndicalism is historically the dominant revolutionary strategy advocated by libertarian socialists. What the ISO article fails to mention is that this is because libertarian socialism is commited firmly to the principle, "the emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves." This has been a constant theme since the First International. Because the ISO article wants to arrogate to ISO's brand of Marxism exclusive ownership over this slogan, they fail to mention this...and thus do not present an accurate picture of revolutionary syndicalism. In fact they don't really even say what it is. The only thing Eric Kurl says is that "not all syndicalists were anarchists. Some like Bill Haywood were Marxists."

There is a fundamental problem for ISO in using this gambit. The problem is this: revolutionary syndicalism is a fundamentally libertarian socialist strategy. Marxists who advocated it were libertarian Marxists at the time they did so. Haywood did not believe that socialism would be created by the Socialist Party taking state power. He believed it would be created from below, through a revolutionary mass strike, with workers seizing the means of production. He supported voting for the American SP merely as a tactic. He believed that electing socialists to local office would create a more sympathetic government for workers organizing. He was no advocate of the Leninized Marxism of the ISO....not til after the Bolsheviks came to power, when he changed his view....and ceased to be a syndicalist.

Kurl's apparent inability to understand revolutionary syndicalism as a real implementation of the idea of the "self-emancipation of the working class" also leads him to misunderstand "prefigurative politics." For revolutionary syndicalists, the development of a mass workers movement where the organizations are based on class solidarity, militant, and controlled by the workers themselves, this is "prefigurative" of a society run by the working class. this is why the IWW spoke of "building the new society in the shell of the old." They weren't talking about setting up coops.

Moreover, it's hard to see how a socialism based on direct, democratic workers' self-management of industry and society could come about if these practices are not first developed and gain deep support within the working class. Only if the working class becomes used to running its own organizations is it less likely to lead to "condescending saviors" to run the society, ruling over us.

Next, Kerl says anarchism completely crashed and virtually disappeared after the defeat of the Spanish revolution. this is a sort of "first world" centric viewpoint. He is apparently unaware that large social anarchist movements continued to exist in a number of South American countries, especially Uruguay and Chile, in the decades after World War 2. He talks about "especifismo" -- a form of social anarchism I happen to agree with -- as having a conception of a revolutionary organization close to Marxism. this is in relation to the advocacy of a horizontally disciplined revolutionary organization that can collective involve itself in mass movements and struggles. he says this is derived from Platformism, but this is mistaken. The "Organizational Platform", wrttien by Makhno's group in 1926, had little influence in the anarchist movement, as Kurl mentions, and didn't really get revived til the '90s. Especifismo is an independent development, created out of the practical experience and thinking of South American social anarchists.

Although especifismo is a more recent evolution, it builds on the social anarchist tradition of "dual organizationalism" -- another concept the ISO article never mentions. This is the basic concept that there are different roles for mass organizations such as unions and a revolutionary political organization which is put together on the basis of a tigher agreement. Dual organizationalism is a concept that goes back at least to the Italian social anarchists of the World War 1 era. But I think it's true that the appreciation of the need for a more united and effective political organization has been an evolution over time among class struggle oriented social anarchists.

Finally, in mentioning the Spanish revolution of the '30s, Kurl repeats the usual Trot myths, that the Spanish anarchists didn't believe in taking power. This is simply false. As Jose Peirats says in "Anarchists in the Spanish revolutiion", it was clear in all the CNT papers of that era that the aim was "all social power in the hands of the proletariat."

If the anarcho-syndicalists didn't believe in "taking power" then why did they take power in cities and regions? In the city of Hospitlet de Llobregat the CNT unions overthrew the city government and elected their own revolutionary committee to replace the city government. In the region of Aragon, the village CNT unions invoked a regional assembly of delegates from all the collectivized villages and elected a regional workers government, a Regional Defense Council. In Sept 1936 the CNT proposed to the UGT union the overthrow of the Republican state and its replacement by a union governing power, a National Defense Council, made up of UGT and CNT delegates elected by a National Workers Congress, made up of delegates elected from assemblies at the base (a kind of soviet congress). Eduardo de Guzman, editor of the CNT daily paper in Madrid called this a "proletarian government".

But the UGT rejected the CNT proposal. Why? Because the Marxist parties in Spain preferred the Popular Front (PSOE, POUM, PCE). That's what happens from a practice of emphasizing "the party taking state power" i guess.

What's necessary, here, is to understand that, for libertarian socialism, there is a distionction between authentic popular power and a state. What replaces the state for (most) libertarian socialists of the class struggle variety is a form of social governance rooted in the direct democracy of assemblies, in workplaces and neighborhoods, but extended then via councils and congresses of delegates over the whole revolutionary territory.This is a form of self-government, or overall social self-management. As such, it would have power to make the basic rules in society and to enforce them, and thus to defend the revolution. At varous times in the past anarcho-syndicalists referred to this as a "federation of councils" but we should be clear that such a federation governs, because the people as a whole, to collectively control their society, need an institution through which they can do this.

[BAM]

syndicat: is there a weblink to this piece?

Also this:


What's necessary, here, is to understand that, for libertarian socialism, there is a distionction between authentic popular power and a state. What replaces the state for (most) libertarian socialists of the class struggle variety is a form of social governance rooted in the direct democracy of assemblies, in workplaces and neighborhoods, but extended then via councils and congresses of delegates over the whole revolutionary territory.This is a form of self-government, or overall social self-management.

:thumbup1:

[syndicat]

they haven't posted links to articles in the new issue. i think they are trying to encourage people to buy it. they may post links later.

[Hiratsuka]

Mutualism isn't libertarian socialism? Talk about 'fudging' facts for one's own convenience. Please do explain your interpretation.

[BAM]

@syndicat: okay, thanks. btw, there is a collection of previous ISO writings on anarchism on the front page of the ISR's website atm.

[syndicat]

Mutualism isn't libertarian socialism?

not as i define it. I define an authentic form of libertarain socialism to mean that the means of production are owned in common by all the people. I prefer "libertarian socialism" to "libertarian communism" because "communism" has been sort of taken over by state socialists, at least for purposes of communication in the USA where I live.

mutualism is a form of market socialism which retains private ownership of productive property and also accrual of private profit. as such, I believe that it would inevitably recreate a class system. It also tends to prefer reformist methods, methods at odds with revolutionary syndicalism, and thus with the dominant form of class struggle oriented social anarchism. The great majority of revolutionary syndicalists historically have been opposed to private ownership of productive property and competitive market relations between production groups.

[bcbm]

Revolutionary syndicalism is historically the dominant revolutionary strategy advocated by libertarian socialists.

"historically" being the key word here.

[syndicat]

One of the things the ISO article highlights is the way that class struggle/mass struggle orientation has grown tremendously of late among social anarchists in the USA. Eric Turl seems to date this to the Republic Windows & Doors occupation, but in reality it goes back a bit. Of the more than a dozen groups that have attended or sponsored the Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences, all but two of these groups have come into existence in the past five years. And all of these groups endorse syndicalism as an approach to the workplace struggle.

[bcbm]

you take all the fun out of sectarian swipes.

[bricolage]

For the most part (especially in response to vulgar trotskyist criticism) I agree with what you have said so I won't really address it however...


I take the position that there is an unbridgeable gulf between those "anarchisms" and the anarchism of mass democratic struggle of the working class and the oppressed.

I'm not sure why everyone always makes this claim. In the vast majority of cases the "lifestylism, primmies, post-lefts, insurrectos, hyper-individualists, Proudhonian cooperativists." (although I'd probably group a lot of insurrectionists apart from the rest) are an irrelevance and don't really feature at all, it's only when other anarchists bring them up (largely as a distraction from bigger, more pressing issues within movement) that they come into focus. In any case despite the differences in opinions between the two I'm willing to bet that in a genuine form of revolutionary struggle, when near to all pre-existing organisations, ideologies and tendencies will be swept away, an overwhelming amount of those associated with that which you list will be on the right side of the barricades. I mean Crimethinc might not be organising in the workplaces but they are hardly going to join the cops.

[Hiratsuka]

not as i define it. I define an authentic form of libertarain socialism to mean that the means of production are owned in common by all the people. .

But those standards exclude anarcho-collectivists since they believe that ownership is an extension of labor. If "all" people" control the means of production without any separation between those who toil and those who consume from a particular faculty, you have replaced one group of parasites who order around others with another.

In fact this debate - whether production is owned by the workers (who branch out in confederations) or all people - is a rather poignant debate even amongst communists.

[syndicat]

you mean any use of the social product for people who aren't working is giving to "parasites"? so are children, the infirm, the retired, and people out of work "parasites" in your book? if so, you have an anti-social outlook.

moreover if workers "own" the product they create they can privately appropriate socially constructed value because their abilities depend on education, on various aspects of the society. it allows the most well-placed "collectives" to in fact exploit those who are less well placed in the economic division of labor.

this is why I say that market socialism will lead inevitably to a new class system.

[Hiratsuka]

I was asking how you can reconcile your rather conclusive and exclusive definition of what constitutes 'libertarian socialism' with certain brands of social anarchism which are even more recognized than mutualists within popular tents, like collectivists. Anarcho-collectivists typically (at least historically, since that seems to be the emphasis here) hold workers to ultimately be the single authority of what production enters and goes. Bakunin was rather adamantly opposed to your idea of a single, ultimate collective entity unless it came together by confederation.

I respect your opinion, but it seems to me that you are coming real close to saying that only anarcho-communism counts.


you mean any use of the social product for people who aren't working is giving to "parasites"? so are children, the infirm, the retired, and people out of work "parasites" in your book? if so, you have an anti-social outlook.I think we both know that mutualists are not properterians in the strict sense and believe that collective action would agitate businesses to cover those who truly needed it. Prior to the establishment of the modern welfare state, fraternity societies and mutual aid organizations were sprouting up across the United States (and probably Europe as well) to do the "chores" we currently expect the government to handle. This is in spite of the fact local governments at the time were trying to push their thumb down on such ongoings as mutual aid as it also promoted unity between the different 'underclasses.'


moreover if workers "own" the product they create they can privately appropriate socially constructed value because their abilities depend on educationThat's a rather vague justification for expropriating the labor of an unwilling participant. You might as well strip away every remnant of individuality left as it can rightly be argued that someone living in a less congested house is more likely to succeed due to relaxed anxiety.

Mutualists want to channel a diminished resemblance of government power into every human being so that it can not be used to monopolize against one particular group - whether that includes workers, women, blacks, etc. The only way to do that, however, is to not force conformity from a monolithic agent but have individual and decentralized organizations rallying within a "market" for change.


it allows the most well-placed "collectives" to in fact exploit those who are less well placed in the economic division of labor.Vague assertions aside, it's not unreasonable to say the very same thing could happen under any system.

In fact, I view mutualism as encompassing all other forms of social anarchism as it reconciles both property and the need to agitate said property - instead of doing away with it entirely or in major concessions. I think if it weren't for the fact they use the term 'markets' and 'business,' there wouldn't even be a debate. If "new anarchism's" response to the "center-left" anarchists is to simply ignore them, there's not much that is going to be done in way of progress.

Anarchism and libertarian socialism aren't relevant in most of the world because most of the world, including the proletariat (very much so), are supportive of some definition of property that goes beyond the communitarian communist position.

[syndicat]

mutualism is a form of market socialism. this means that each group of workers acts as a business, competing with other businesses. This undermines social solidarity because it encourages each group of workers to look out only for themselves. They have to in order to survive in competition.

Moreover, each production collective is a private business. The workers own that business as their private property. There has been a long history of cooperatives using that position to exploit wage slaves without them being taken on with equal rights. Look at the Mondragon coops as an example.

Each coop is a business in the sense it owns its revenue. hence each business is driven to pursue the maximum of surplus of revenue over expenses, same as capitalist businesses.

This inevitably will mean great inequality because different cooperatives will have better positions in the market. It undermines social solidarity as any systems of social provision will have to come out of what the workers in each collective have available.

Moreover, it presupposes a labor market. And various individuals will be able to use their superior position in the labor market for competitive advantage. If a person has management experience, marketing savvy or technical expertise they will be in high demand and will be able to demand high incomes, and probably other perks. Moreover, the tendency will be for managers and technical experts to become dominant over other workers...also quite visible in the Mondragon coops.

This means inevitably it will lead to a system where the working class are exploited and dominated by a professional/managerial bureaucratic class...just as they were under Yugoslav fake "self-management" and just as they are in the Mondragon coops.

As to "collectivism" there is no such political trend. If you think there is, tell me who advocates it now and how exactly it differs from mutualism.

In reality the only alternatives are between market socialism and libertarian communism...and libertarian communism is what revolutionary syndicalists have historically argued for. And they're right to do so.

Historically mutualism was advocated by Proudhon and his followers. They do not advocate the class struggle and seizure of the means of production by the working class as the means to a transition to libertarian socialism. As such, any discussion of them is completely irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about class struggle social anarchism.

In this particuilar thread at the begining i set aside any cirituques of Proudhonian cooperativism, insurrectos, primmies, post-lefts, crimethinc lifestylists and indidivualists in order to focus only on the what the ISO says about syndicalism and class struggle-oriented social anarchism. you are trying to interject a separate discussion.

[RebelDog]

you mean any use of the social product for people who aren't working is giving to "parasites"? so are children, the infirm, the retired, and people out of work "parasites" in your book? if so, you have an anti-social outlook.

moreover if workers "own" the product they create they can privately appropriate socially constructed value because their abilities depend on education, on various aspects of the society. it allows the most well-placed "collectives" to in fact exploit those who are less well placed in the economic division of labor.

this is why I say that market socialism will lead inevitably to a new class system.

I'm a market abolitionist like yourself and Michael Albert. I see markets as a way of exploiting power and they are at best a crude model of distributing goods. Also as I see it such an economy would limit the free access of information and technology due to competition in the market.

[Crux]

The CNT also took part in the Popular Front, with ministers even. The CNT also infamously and explictly rejected to seize power when they had the chance stating "they didn't want to create a dictatorship." ironically that's what they did by getting defeated by Franco.

[Die Neue Zeit]

First, I'm not going to say anything about lifestylism a la crimethinc, insurrectos, or the Bookchinites. I take the position that there is an unbridgeable gulf between those "anarchisms" and the anarchism of mass democratic struggle of the working class and the oppressed. I'm only willing to defend social anarchism (AKA libertarian socialism) with class/mass struggle perspective.

[...]

This article is better than previous ISO articles because they are finally beginning to take seriously the distinction between social anarchism with a class struggle perspective -- the historically dominant form of anarchism -- versus the contemporary American brands such as lifestylism, primmies, post-lefts, insurrectos, hyper-individualists, Proudhonian cooperativists.

By "insurrectos," do you mean the Black Bloc hooligans and those who do make bomb attacks (here I would include the Red Army Faction and Red Brigades, despite their pretensions towards Marxism)?


He believed it would be created from below, through a revolutionary mass strike, with workers seizing the means of production. He supported voting for the American SP merely as a tactic. He believed that electing socialists to local office would create a more sympathetic government for workers organizing. He was no advocate of the Leninized Marxism of the ISO....not til after the Bolsheviks came to power, when he changed his view....and ceased to be a syndicalist.

The fetish for the "revolutionary" mass strike wave is what's wrong with all the various apolitical forms of syndicalism, including anarcho-syndicalism historically.

[syndicat]

The CNT also took part in the Popular Front, with ministers even. The CNT also infamously and explictly rejected to seize power when they had the chance stating "they didn't want to create a dictatorship." ironically that's what they did by getting defeated by Franco.


you're just parroting the perennial Trot line. you apparently didn't read what I said above about the CNT's proposal to form a workers government. This was rejected by the Marxist parties. all of the Marxist parties in Spain (PSOE, PCE, POUM) participated in the Popular Front from the very beginning. the anarcho-syndicalist resisted this longer than any other Left force. when they proposed to the UGT the replacement of the Republican government, that is, the Popular Front, with a revolutionary council created by the two union federations, it was the Socialist and Communist parties who sabotaged that.

the bit about "not wanting to create a dictatorship" was an excuse concocted after the fact to deflect criticism from anarcho-syndicalists in other countries. and it was mainly the mismanagement of the war by the Communists, after ejecting the anarcho-syndicalists from the government, that is responsible for the defeat.

[bcbm]

By "insurrectos," do you mean the Black Bloc hooligans and those who do make bomb attacks (here I would include the Red Army Faction and Red Brigades, despite their pretensions towards Marxism)?

clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism) clicky (http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/notes.htm)

and i am not sure why you would include the RAF/BR or any other urban guerrilla group with insurrectionary anarchists, they are firmly opposed to these sorts of struggles and have denounced them from the beginning (such as alfredo bonnano in "armed joy (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alfredo_M._Bonanno__Armed_Joy.html)").

[Os Cangaceiros]

The fetish for the "revolutionary" mass strike wave is what's wrong with all the various apolitical forms of syndicalism, including anarcho-syndicalism historically.

"Apolitical"?

One of anarcho-syndicalism's slogans is that "the economic is political".

[Os Cangaceiros]

clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism) clicky (http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/notes.htm)

and i am not sure why you would include the RAF/BR or any other urban guerrilla group with insurrectionary anarchists, they are firmly opposed to these sorts of struggles and have denounced them from the beginning (such as alfredo bonnano in "armed joy (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alfredo_M._Bonanno__Armed_Joy.html)").

Why do you even bother?

He's been on this site long enough to know at least a little bit about what insurrectionary anarchism is, as well as all the other people across the various ideologies who pan it without knowing jackshit about the theory and praxis beyond "hooliganism".

I mean, I don't consider myself to be an insurrectionary anarchist, and I'm critical of their theories about social rupture and all, but I think that it's one of the more strawmanned ideologies on this site.

[bcbm]

Why do you even bother?


bored and hungover.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Too much Four Loco will do that to you.

[bcbm]

mead, actually.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Apolitical"?

One of anarcho-syndicalism's slogans is that "the economic is political".

That's the wrong approach. I have never heard about anarcho-syndicalists calling for political action on expanding the right to bear arms (towards worker militias), plebiscites on income tax rates, class-based affirmative action, democratization of the media, zero unemployment cyclically or structually through a public employer of last resort (for consumer services), etc.

[M-26-7]

Good post, syndicat. It continues to amaze me that Trotskyist groups like the ISO, who are seemingly so opposed to Stalinism, fail to see the solid root of Stalinism in the substitutionism of Lenin-era Bolshevism. I have yet to hear a Leninist explain to me what would ever guarantee that today's Party "representatives" of the working class won't once again become tomorrow's slave drivers in The Great Socialist Industrialization Drive after consolidating their position as a privileged social layer with monopolistic control over the social product. That this elite social layer recruits new members from the working class (at first, at least) is not exactly impressive and doesn't inspire me to run to the barricades. Long live class struggle anarchism.

[Devrim]

That's the wrong approach. I have never heard about anarcho-syndicalists calling for political action on expanding the right to bear arms (towards worker militias), plebiscites on income tax rates, class-based affirmative action, democratization of the media, zero unemployment cyclically or structually through a public employer of last resort (for consumer services), etc.

That's because they have a view of what class politics are about based upon the historic experience of the class and not dreamt up by one individual in their bedroom.

That list is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard of in politics.

Devrim

[RebelDog]

That's the wrong approach. I have never heard about anarcho-syndicalists calling for political action on expanding the right to bear arms (towards worker militias), plebiscites on income tax rates, class-based affirmative action, democratization of the media, zero unemployment cyclically or structually through a public employer of last resort (for consumer services), etc.

What on earth are you talking about?

[this is an invasion]

What on earth are you talking about?

Shhhh. Just ignore him. Try not to make eye contact.

[bricolage]

What on earth are you talking about?

I don't think anyone ever knows.

[OriginalGumby]

Here is the Audio File from the Socialism Conference Session by the same name and speaker http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/anarchism

[Zanthorus]

What on earth are you talking about?

If you peel back the unworldy jargon he uses his basic point is to recover the positions of the "revolutionary centre" of Karl Kautsky against the "ultra-left" tactics of mass strikes and all power to the workers councils as well as the revisionist tactics of reformist parliamentary coalitions etc. But more specifically his point here is that "every class struggle is a political struggle" (Manifesto of the Communist Party) and therefore to defeat the bourgeoisie it is necessary to raise political demands. Most people on this site tacitly admit the point in one way or another as every tendency has it's own specific ideas of how the working-class will wield power post-revolution.

I think there is a generaly problem in the left of fetishising the forms of working-class power without advancing any kind of programmatic content for them to carry out. Communism after all is not just about maintaining capitalism but with a more democratic form but abolishing it wholesale via some kind of revolutionary program. I don't think DNZ's ideas are the answer either... but at least he brings up the question instead of brushing over it.

[syndicat]

That's the wrong approach. I have never heard about anarcho-syndicalists calling for political action on expanding the right to bear arms (towards worker militias), plebiscites on income tax rates, class-based affirmative action, democratization of the media, zero unemployment cyclically or structually through a public employer of last resort (for consumer services), etc.

The CNT and CGT in Spain are both calling for defense of quality public services and public employment and income maintenance. These are demands against the Spanish state. In fact syndicalist labor gruops have built worker militias in certain periods. Doing something is obviously a way to fight for the right to do it.

In any event, your argument is completely arbitrary. First you wrongly say that anarchosyndicalism is "apolitical" and then you list as a litmus test a completely arbitrary set of demands. That's ridiculous.

And the Red Brigades and RAF had nothing to do with any form of anarchism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's because they have a view of what class politics are about based upon the historic experience of the class and not dreamt up by one individual in their bedroom.

That list is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard of in politics.

Devrim

Workers militias can be found in the Eisenach, Gotha, and Erfurt programs.

Plebiscites on tax rates can be found in the latter.

Class-based affirmative action is relatively new, because it is inspired somewhat by race-based and gender-based affirmative action policies.

Democratization of the media is something you don't know about? It looks like you're the one in your proverbial bedroom, specifically under the bed.

Not knowing about zero unemployment is the only understandable part, but without a revolutionary program there can be no revolutionary movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The CNT and CGT in Spain are both calling for defense of quality public services and public employment and income maintenance. These are demands against the Spanish state. In fact syndicalist labor gruops have built worker militias in certain periods. Doing something is obviously a way to fight for the right to do it.

In any event, your argument is completely arbitrary. First you wrongly say that anarchosyndicalism is "apolitical" and then you list as a litmus test a completely arbitrary set of demands. That's ridiculous.

What I meant to say, and as noted by comrade Zanthorus above, is that anarcho-syndicalist organizations (as opposed to individual anarcho-syndicalists) should raise explicitly political demands in addition to setting up alternative cultures (cultural societies, sports clubs, funeral homes, food banks, etc.) such that they will have become genuine political parties in all but name. Real parties are real movements and vice versa, anyway.

Historically anarcho-syndicalism has been apolitical except when fetishizing workers councils. Also, my demands aren't arbitrary at all, when considering past political programs.


And the Red Brigades and RAF had nothing to do with any form of anarchism.

They don't have anything to do with anarcho-syndicalism indeed, but their terrorism fetish is perfectly in line with Bakunin (substance), despite their lip service homage to Marx (form).

[Devrim]

Workers militias can be found in the Eisenach and Erfurt programs.

It may well be, but calling for workers' militias today is absurd. You can't just call for 'workers' militias' when there is no revolutionary movement.


Plebiscites on tax rates can be found in the latter.

Which doesn't make it any less absurd today.


Class-based affirmative action is relatively new, because it is inspired somewhat by race-based and gender-based affirmative action policies.

What do you want to do, Give workers jobs in management?


Democratization of the media is something you don't know about?

What would a democratic media look like at the moment? It would be one controlled by the big bourgeois parties.


It looks like you're the one in your proverbial bedroom, specifically under the bed.

I spent the afternoon at a rather sad demonstration at the end of a struggle by workers who had lost their jobs, slightly more connected to the reality of the working class today than you and your endless programatical points.


Not knowing about zero unemployment is the only understandable part,

I am just about old enough to remember 'zero unemployment', which last existed at the end of the post-war boom. It is not something that capital can provide today.


but without a revolutionary program there can be no revolutionary movement.

And there can't be a revolutionary programme without a revolutionary movement. They are interconnected things.



And the Red Brigades and RAF had nothing to do with any form of anarchism. They don't have anything to do with anarcho-syndicalism indeed, but their terrorism fetish is perfectly in line with Bakunin (substance), despite their lip service homage to Marx (form).

As has already been said they had nothing at all to do with anarchism. In fact they ended up as an ancillary of the East German state.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

It may well be, but calling for workers' militias today is absurd. You can't just call for 'workers' militias' when there is no revolutionary movement.

At that time the German workers movement was not exactly "revolutionary." If you had bothered to read my stuff, you'd notice that "workers militias" was a shorthand for a broader formation per below:

Full, lawsuit-enforced freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association for people of the dispossessed classes, even within the military, free especially from anti-employment reprisals, police interference such as from agents provocateurs, and formal political disenfranchisement;

The expansion of the ability to bear arms and to general self-defense towards enabling the formation of people’s militias based on free training, especially in connection with class-strugglist association, and also free from police interference such as from agents provocateurs [...]


Which doesn't make it any less absurd today.

Are you going to raise that California canard of low taxes and spend-spend-spend again? :glare:


What do you want to do, Give workers jobs in management?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-based-affirmative-t133944/index.html


What would a democratic media look like at the moment? It would be one controlled by the big bourgeois parties.

Don't be ridiculous:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-we-address-t109089/index.html?p=1449770 (Part 1)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-we-address-t109089/index.html?p=1476266 (Part 2)


I am just about old enough to remember 'zero unemployment', which last existed at the end of the post-war boom. It is not something that capital can provide today.

Zero unemployment is not the same as "full employment," but because Minsky and his followers weren't/aren't political enough, I'll cut you some slack on this one.

[Devrim]

If you had bothered to read my stuff, you'd notice that "workers militias" was a shorthand for a broader formation per below:

No, I don't bother. I don't see any reason why anybody should, or be expected to understand your 'shorthand'.

Devrim

[syndicat]

What I meant to say, and as noted by comrade Zanthorus above, is that anarcho-syndicalist organizations (as opposed to individual anarcho-syndicalists) should raise explicitly political demands in addition to setting up alternative cultures (cultural societies, sports clubs, funeral homes, food banks, etc.) such that they will have become genuine political parties in all but name. Real parties are real movements and vice versa, anyway.

Historically anarcho-syndicalism has been apolitical except when fetishizing workers councils. Also, my demands aren't arbitrary at all, when considering past political programs.


This is completely fictional. The IWW in the USA used its halls for classes, libraries. In Spain the anarcho-syndicalist movement had a long history of developing things like neighborhood centers, think-tanks (like ICEA founded in 1931), tenant organizing drives, and today the CGT has a variety of campaigns that are directly related to various social miovements...ecology, squatting, immigrants rights, etc.

The current program of the CNT and CGT calls for "distribution of wealth and employment" and "defense of quality public services". But this is linked to their campaigns and organizing against the current capitalist crisis and the fiscal crisis of the state.

[Crux]

you're just parroting the perennial Trot line. you apparently didn't read what I said above about the CNT's proposal to form a workers government. This was rejected by the Marxist parties. all of the Marxist parties in Spain (PSOE, PCE, POUM) participated in the Popular Front from the very beginning. the anarcho-syndicalist resisted this longer than any other Left force. when they proposed to the UGT the replacement of the Republican government, that is, the Popular Front, with a revolutionary council created by the two union federations, it was the Socialist and Communist parties who sabotaged that.

the bit about "not wanting to create a dictatorship" was an excuse concocted after the fact to deflect criticism from anarcho-syndicalists in other countries. and it was mainly the mismanagement of the war by the Communists, after ejecting the anarcho-syndicalists from the government, that is responsible for the defeat.
The PCE played a directly reactionary role and the POUM and PSOE walked into a dead end. But CNT are certainly not blameless, there's no need to romantisize them after the fact.

[syndicat]

But CNT are certainly not blameless, there's no need to romantisize them after the fact.

i didn't say they made no mistakes. trying to set the record straight is not "romanticizing" them.

anyway, my reply to the ISR article has been published at:

http://ideasandaction.info

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well I haven't had a chance to read this article because of the ISO conference in Oakland and everything happening with the Oscar Grant case right now, but I did get a chance to listen to the mp3 of Kerl's talk in Chicago at the WeAreMany.org (http://wearemany.org/event/2010/06/socialism-2010-chicago) website. Hopefully I will get a chance to catch up on some reading soon (I also bought a copy of "Black Flame" at the conference and I'd love to talk about that at some point in the future too) and I look forward to reading your responce to the ISR in a future issue as well.

Since I have not read the article yet I will just try and respond generally to some of the criticisms of the ISO take on anarchism in general and syndicalism specifically. This will be long, so I apologize, but the OP was long and I want to try and do Syndicat's comments and time some justice.

First, as was brought up before in other threads, the talk that Kerl did was an attempt to make general observations about developments in anarchism, not a talk specifically about syndicalism. There are two reasons that talks and articles like this focus on contemporary syndicalism: first, speaking for myself and most people I know in the ISO, we would not see an upsurge in Revolutionary union/syndicalist activity as a problem - it would be a great step forward for the movement (and I mean worker's movement, not just anarchism as a tendency); second, unfortunately Syndicalism is not the majority of the anarchist movement at the moment and not the majority of self-proclaimed anarchists that our members run into. This isn't a subjective fault of syndicalists in my view (or an attempt to marginalize them either) but a result of the general lack of fightback among workers since the bosses big push-back starting in the late 1970s. This same situation has also led to the ISO being able to grow and make some inroads, but not that much within the labor movement itself (though much more in our recent history than in the past); for other groups who had better connections to labor, they have simply had a difficult time growing. The reason for all these problems goes back to the low-level of workplace fight-back over the last generation of a one-sided class war. If people are disoriented and demoralized and not trying to fight back, then it is much harder for any of us to make arguments about the best ways to fight back. We make these arguments, but they are not as relevant as in times of increased worker militancy. Which brings me to this point:


Next, Kerl says anarchism completely crashed and virtually disappeared after the defeat of the Spanish revolution. this is a sort of "first world" centric viewpoint. He is apparently unaware that large social anarchist movements continued to exist in a number of South American countries, especially Uruguay and Chile, in the decades after World War 2.Again I haven't read the context in which this was written, but from the discussion in talk mp3 and from my understanding of the ISO's take on syndicalism, one of the criticisms we have with syndicalism (and not just syndicalism but other ways of organizing too) compared to building a party is that because of the focus on the workplace struggle and building a revolutionary union, this form of organizing is susceptible to the general up and down trends in worker militancy and labor struggle. So in the US and UK, syndicalism became a very strong and important revolutionary force when the labor movement was in the upswing, but the newspapers and other tools for the struggle set up by these syndicalists largely fell apart when the class struggle shifted into a different phase.

As we see it, building a party is important (especially in places like the US) because of the ups and downs of the class struggle. By attempting to orient towards worker's struggle in workplaces as well as communities and schools etc, we can potentially be more flexible and be able to adapt and learn from the twists and turns of the class struggle and avoid the kinds of collapse that cause activists to have to re-learn the lessons of the past when each new upsurge in struggle happens.

Obviously, you have a different perspective on that, but it's our take and not some kind of attempt to marginalize syndicalism.


This article is better than previous ISO articles because they are finally beginning to take seriously the distinction between social anarchism with a class struggle perspective -- the historically dominant form of anarchism -- versus the contemporary American brands such as lifestylism, primmies, post-lefts, insurrectos, hyper-individualists, Proudhonian cooperativists.Again, as I said, not focusing on syndicalism has more to do with articles and newspaper pieces designed to take on questions that our members and allies are confronted with. When I first joined, this meant that most talks about anarchism were dominated by discussions of consensus decision or the black bloc, because, frankly these were the main things that most self-identified anarchists we ran into were concerned about. But I was also advised, and learned in practice, not to assume what someone means by "anarchist" but to take even anarchists from the different groups within the same tradition.


Revolutionary syndicalism is historically the dominant revolutionary strategy advocated by libertarian socialists. What the ISO article fails to mention is that this is because libertarian socialism is commited firmly to the principle, "the emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves." This has been a constant theme since the First International.

Because the ISO article wants to arrogate to ISO's brand of Marxism exclusive ownership over this slogan, they fail to mention this...and thus do not present an accurate picture of revolutionary syndicalism.We also say "An Injury to one is an Injury to all" proudly as an IWW slogan and part of the best of radicalism of American workers.

We emphasize the self-emancipation of workers, but it is not an attempt to "Co-opt" anything or distort anyone eles's tradition, but because it is part of our attempt to counter a lot of the bullshit from Cold War-era "socialism". We believe this, self-emancipation, is the real tradition of Marxism (Marx and Engels both said this), not opposed to Syndicalists, but opposed to "Marxists" who have gone down a path of top-down socialism and other ideas that I believe lead us further from working class revolution and real liberation.

In addition it is still useful today because it emphasizes the centrality of the working class as opposed to socialist reformists (change from above), and people who think that the working class is part of the problem or adventurists or individualists etc. We see the centrality of the working class as essential to any sort of re-building of the left and for that reason I would see an upsurge of syndicalism as a very positive development on the whole.


He [Haywood] was no advocate of the Leninized Marxism of the ISO....not til after the Bolsheviks came to power, when he changed his view....and ceased to be a syndicalist.I'm not sure how it is presented in the article, but in the talk MP3 he says that many syndicalists were won to supporting the Russian Revolution (as were many former reformists like Debs and ordinary workers) at the time of the Revolution as a result of the political debates and the actual example of revolution going on, not that famous syndicalists were Bolsheviks.


Kurl's apparent inability to understand revolutionary syndicalism as a real implementation of the idea of the "self-emancipation of the working class" also leads him to misunderstand "prefigurative politics." For revolutionary syndicalists, the development of a mass workers movement where the organizations are based on class solidarity, militant, and controlled by the workers themselves, this is "prefigurative" of a society run by the working class. this is why the IWW spoke of "building the new society in the shell of the old." They weren't talking about setting up coops.I can't comment on this one until I read the article, because if he is criticizing the idea of "prefigurative politics" in the context of "crude anarchism" that's popular in the US, then that is a little different than criticizing the IWW's work as being like a co-op.

But in general, yes we do not see our organization or some future vanguard party's role as being the kernel of a new state or society, as the IWW might see autonomous unions linked together as the preconfiguration of the kind of organization that workers can use to organize society. But we do think that "the development of a mass workers movement where the organizations are based on class solidarity, militant, and controlled by the workers themselves," are pre-conditions for any kind of real attempt at working class power. Out of this kind of movement we think that councils or other such organs that can potentially be the way that workers organize things will emerge as they have in many many revolutionary situations.


Moreover, it's hard to see how a socialism based on direct, democratic workers' self-management of industry and society could come about if these practices are not first developed and gain deep support within the working class. Only if the working class becomes used to running its own organizations is it less likely to lead to "condescending saviors" to run the society, ruling over us.Like I said, these things are pre-conditions for any real revolution - in fact they are pre-conditions to a real party made up of the vanguard - if no one is struggling and if masses of people aren't already grappling with questions of how to replace the system etc, then there isn't much of a vanguard - just some self-proclaimed "leaders" and that is a vanguard in name only and (if somehow successful in a revolution) would produce a system that is socialism in name only.


What's necessary, here, is to understand that, for libertarian socialism, there is a distionction between authentic popular power and a state. What replaces the state for (most) libertarian socialists of the class struggle variety is a form of social governance rooted in the direct democracy of assemblies, in workplaces and neighborhoods, but extended then via councils and congresses of delegates over the whole revolutionary territory.This is a form of self-government, or overall social self-management. As such, it would have power to make the basic rules in society and to enforce them, and thus to defend the revolution. At varous times in the past anarcho-syndicalists referred to this as a "federation of councils" but we should be clear that such a federation governs, because the people as a whole, to collectively control their society, need an institution through which they can do this.Essentially, this is what I would call Socialism/Worker's State and this is what I fight for. If more have this sort of conception of Socialism or whatever you want to call it, even if, like Syndicalists, they have different political positions and much different ideas about the means to get there, then it is a "rising tide floats all boats" type situation in my mind. When much of the left sees this as the goal, I think it will be a sign that the left is much healthier, overcoming the swamp of USSR-influenced "socialism" as well as romantic adventurism and so on.

I have one more day of the conference, followed by possible protests and mass anger following a verdict in the Oscar Grant case, but once I have had some time to pass out and shower:lol:, I'll take a look at the article and respond more.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is completely fictional. The IWW in the USA used its halls for classes, libraries. In Spain the anarcho-syndicalist movement had a long history of developing things like neighborhood centers, think-tanks (like ICEA founded in 1931), tenant organizing drives, and today the CGT has a variety of campaigns that are directly related to various social miovements...ecology, squatting, immigrants rights, etc.

The current program of the CNT and CGT calls for "distribution of wealth and employment" and "defense of quality public services". But this is linked to their campaigns and organizing against the current capitalist crisis and the fiscal crisis of the state.

The IWW went completely apolitical after the failed attempt by the Comintern to turn it into a "red union" as part of the "Third Period" strategy. I do applaud syndicalist attempts to mimic the pre-war SPD's alternative culture, though.

Re. the CGT: Why can't it unite those campaigns into a cohesive political program that addresses ecology, squatting, immigrant rights - all in a single document like the Erfurt Program?

[chegitz guevara]

What's necessary, here, is to understand that, for libertarian socialism, there is a distionction between authentic popular power and a state. What replaces the state for (most) libertarian socialists of the class struggle variety is a form of social governance rooted in the direct democracy of assemblies, in workplaces and neighborhoods, but extended then via councils and congresses of delegates over the whole revolutionary territory.This is a form of self-government, or overall social self-management. As such, it would have power to make the basic rules in society and to enforce them, and thus to defend the revolution.

You can call a rose a tulip, but it's still just a rose. You can pretend that your state isn't a state, but it's still a gang of armed men (and women!) organized to suppress another class, i.e., a state.

[syndicat]

Again I haven't read the context in which this was written, but from the discussion in talk mp3 and from my understanding of the ISO's take on syndicalism, one of the criticisms we have with syndicalism (and not just syndicalism but other ways of organizing too) compared to building a party is that because of the focus on the workplace struggle and building a revolutionary union, this form of organizing is susceptible to the general up and down trends in worker militancy and labor struggle. So in the US and UK, syndicalism became a very strong and important revolutionary force when the labor movement was in the upswing, but the newspapers and other tools for the struggle set up by these syndicalists largely fell apart when the class struggle shifted into a different phase.

As we see it, building a party is important (especially in places like the US) because of the ups and downs of the class struggle. By attempting to orient towards worker's struggle in workplaces as well as communities and schools etc, we can potentially be more flexible and be able to adapt and learn from the twists and turns of the class struggle and avoid the kinds of collapse that cause activists to have to re-learn the lessons of the past when each new upsurge in struggle happens.


Well, this is an argument for the political organization being a memory for the class. We agree with that.

This is the point to the concept of "dual organization" which is central to class struggle social anarchism. This means that there is role for both mass organizations/mass movements and for political organization. Yes, there is a relatively low level of working class resistance, mass organization is weak or non existent, the unions are bureaucratic shell, since at least the '70s, but even back then in the '60s/70s there were similar problems.

The political organization does have a role as class memory and articulating lessons learned from previous struggles and a vision of a libertarian socialist alternative, educating and developing activists and organizers and so on.

My discussion of the FAU and especifismo and of the role of the political organization was meant precisely to address this issue.

It's not a "party" because its role is not to take power, or to run a state. Taking power is for the mass social movements, for the working class itself through mass democracy such as workplace assemblies, councils, delegate congresses, etc.

Syndicalism is a revolutionary strategy. It presupposes a process of struggle and development of consciousness within the working class, to have large organized mass formations that are very grassroots, very independent in relation to capital and the state and so on. Part of the idea of a libertarian socialist organization is to help further this process, to being people together to learn, to organize, to perhaps be a catalyst. But people have to be willing to fight, or the process doesn't get off the ground. Class consciousness develops through struggle, as Marx pointed out.

[syndicat]

You can pretend that your state isn't a state, but it's still a gang of armed men (and women!) organized to suppress another class, i.e., a state.

The function of popular power is not "to suppress another class." The function of popular power is to be a means for the people themselves to run their society, and the role of self-management of industry is for the workers to run these industries.

Nor could "suppressing another class" possibly be what is essential to being a state. A state is an institution, not an event. A state is, as Engels said, an institution that rules over society, and is separate from control by the people. This is so because otherwise it couldn't serve its function of defending the interests of a dominating, exploiting class.

But precisely because a state is a hierarchical apparatus not directly controlled by the people, it can't be a means to working class self-governance of society.

You want to fudge or smear the distinction between authentic popular self-management of society with your concept of a "workers state" because if the latter is accepted, then so is its being a state, that is, a hierarchical apparatus with things like a hierarchical army command, centralized statist planning, party leaders issuing their decrees or creating their laws, implementing their program through the hierarchy of the state.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think this question of a state really is a semantic argument in this case. I agree with what you say about the state in terms of all previously existing minority ruling class states - I also generally agree with your description of how workers could organize themselves for self-rule after a revolution. The main difference is that I call this a "state" simply because it is class rule (even though it is the majority-class rule).

A state is, as Engels said, an institution that rules over society, and is separate from control by the people. This is so because otherwise it couldn't serve its function of defending the interests of a dominating, exploiting class.

Just curious about the context of what Engels was talking about in the description you referenced above because in "Origins of Private Property etc" he is talking about the development of historical states which have all been the institutions of a minority class ruling all of society


But precisely because a state is a hierarchical apparatus not directly controlled by the people, it can't be a means to working class self-governance of society.Which is the point of the state in minority-ruling class systems like capitalist and state-capitalist states. While workers would still need to initially consolidate their collective rule over the odds and ends of left from capitalism, it would be a totally useless form of organizing for the organs they set up to be hierarchiaclly detached from workers themselves since workers are the vast majority of modern society.

This is why revolutionaries should not rely on capturing and using the existing state to transform society, because the existing state is an organ set up to NOT be responsive to the population, but to preserve minority class rule and the capitalist status-quo. Workers will have to set up new institutions that would best allow the majority class to make decisions until the remaining nubs of class-antagonism have been totally rooted out.

[syndicat]

I also refuse to use the term "workers state" because of what happened in Russia in 1917-18. The Bolsheviks were able to force thru the setting up of the Council of People's Commissars. Very soon this commmittee began ruling by decree, not even bothering to submit its proposals to the nominal legislature...the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Congress. and they could do this because they'd packed the CEC. there was no sense in which the Council of People's Commissars was accountable directly to the mass of the population. within weeks it had set up a political police and a central planning body, all appointed from above, and soon created a hierarchical army run by thousands of czarist officers. rejecting the Bolshevik legacy means also rejecting the formulas of Leninism. to put this another way, this apparatus satisfies Engels' definition of a state.

[Hater of Dilettantes]

How many Anarchist are aware of Worker Solidarity Alliance's policy of trashing native born low income workers? WSA members I've talked to regard econonomic deprivation among native born low income workers as being voluntary. Anyone wanting to see an end of poverty and unemployment should be a Socialist. Those in favor of death camps for native born victims of economic deprivation should become Anarchists.

[crashcourse]

Hater, name some names or shut the fuck up. I'm a WSA member and I think you're straight up lying. I would be shocked if any of our members actually think what you claim, that native-born US people who are in poverty must be voluntarily in poverty. And, even if some individual members really do think what you claim, that's not an organizational policy, it's a few individuals having stupid views and if you were serious about revolutionary organization and were principled you would know that this is the kind of thing you ask about before making accusations like this. I hope this is just a matter of you being young and immature and not thinking things through carefully and not a matter of you deliberately setting out to attack folk. Furthermore even if some individual WSA members really do think what you say, and I bet they don't, it's STILL not the case that "deprivation is voluntary for native born workers" equals "death camps for native born workers", that's an incredibly irresponsible and disgusting accusation to make. Finally - some WSA members identify as socialists and not as anarchists, so get your terms right before you trot out your smears, you dolt.

That bit of repugnant juvenalia aside, I'd also like to point folk to this response to Kerl's essay, dealing with his misrepresentation of a Chicago anarchist collective from a few years back:
whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2010/08/10/were-the-actual-politics-of-the-brick-collective/

Kerl gets that group wrong enough that it's either politically motivated distortion or incredibly sloppy journalism. Either way, it's pretty sorry stuff.

[RedTrackWorker]

First, being that I'm posting so soon after Hater of Dilettantes, I want to say that while I'm critical of the WSA and have only met a few of them, I extremely doubt what he saying and more, saying those things without evidence is repugnant, uncomradely and probably deserving of some kind of board censor.

To my main point:
Syndicat, I've found many of your posts here insightful and informative, so I was a bit surprised to read the following:

you're just parroting the perennial Trot line. you apparently didn't read what I said above about the CNT's proposal to form a workers government. This was rejected by the Marxist parties. all of the Marxist parties in Spain (PSOE, PCE, POUM) participated in the Popular Front from the very beginning. the anarcho-syndicalist resisted this longer than any other Left force. when they proposed to the UGT the replacement of the Republican government, that is, the Popular Front, with a revolutionary council created by the two union federations, it was the Socialist and Communist parties who sabotaged that.

I am one of those Trotskyists that agrees with Trotsky on the POUM, so I'm not out to defend their honor but to be clear about the situation. The POUM joined the electoral alliance of 36, but the CNT essentially called for voting for it no? The POUM afterwards broke from it and maybe criticized doing that? But the POUM never joined the national Republican government I don't think and they joined in Catalonia only after/with the CNT, which proceeded to take actions to eliminate workers' dual power institutions, those "new in the shell of the old", no?
Saying they made a proposal for a workers' government and then just said, "Oh, you said no? Not a good idea? Alrighty then, enough of that." just isn't serious. Blum proposed to aid the Republican government and the generals said no and he just went about his business. The Mensheviks proposed all sorts of great and nice things in the popular front government in 1917. So what? The CNT leaders were to the left of all the parties (except maybe the POUM) on most issues: Morocco, militia, government, etc. but (and this is a but that counts) what did they do when push came to shove? They backed down and accomodated to capitalist rule.
I haven't read WSA's stuff on the Spanish revolution, so maybe I'm misinterpreting or missing your points in this short post, so feel free to correct me.

[syndicat]

The fetish for the "revolutionary" mass strike wave is what's wrong with all the various apolitical forms of syndicalism, including anarcho-syndicalism historically.

we're not apolitical. apparently you believe that only parliamentary elections are "politics." in reality there is such a thing as mass politics, as the politics of the workplace and community, and anywhere that struggles take place. and how is it "apolitical" to advocate getting rid of the state and the capitalists and replacing them with social self-management and worker power?

[bricolage]

I do applaud syndicalist attempts to mimic the pre-war SPD's alternative culture, though.
If you want to get historical the syndicalists were doing it long before the SPD.

[Palingenisis]

The IWW went completely apolitical after the failed attempt by the Comintern to turn it into a "red union" as part of the "Third Period" strategy. I do applaud syndicalist attempts to mimic the pre-war SPD's alternative culture, though.



In my limitedish experiance Anarchists and those calling themselves vary greatly in their actual politics. Also it should be remembered that a lot of anarcho-syndicialists in mainland Europe at least have taken over the idea of the "Social Factory" from Autonomism and so transcended narrow economism.

[syndicat]

I am one of those Trotskyists that agrees with Trotsky on the POUM, so I'm not out to defend their honor but to be clear about the situation. The POUM joined the electoral alliance of 36, but the CNT essentially called for voting for it no?

almost. officially the CNT took no position one way or the other. in practice they voted for it to obtain freedom of their political prisoners.



The POUM afterwards broke from it and maybe criticized doing that? But the POUM never joined the national Republican government

The POUM had no significant membership outside the Catalan-speaking region.



I don't think and they joined in Catalonia only after/with the CNT,

they supported the Left Front (the Popular Front) in Catalonia and backed Companys' proposal for an Anti-Fascist Militia Committee, which was an attempt to prevent the CNT from overthrowing the government. They criticized the CNT for seizures of property of the petit bourgoisie (small business owners with a few employees). CNT's position was that they would not take property of small business owners or farmers only if they didn't hire anyone and were merely self-employed.



which proceeded to take actions to eliminate workers' dual power institutions, those "new in the shell of the old", no?

what are you talking about? what "dual power institutions"?

The CNT joined the national government ostensibly to protect their worker-managed industries and militias. It ended up very badly.

But the moves towards nationalization of the worker-managed industries only really got underway after the CNT and Left Socialists were evicted from the government in May 1937. There was a continuous process of statification of these industries due not only to Communist pressure but also because, having failed to consolidate the revolution by replacing the state, they became dependent on the state for loans and credits, and this made them vulnerable to state takeover.



Saying they made a proposal for a workers' government and then just said, "Oh, you said no? Not a good idea? Alrighty then, enough of that." just isn't serious.

well, i would agree with that criticism of the majority. in reality there were three different anarchist tendencies in the CNT. the revolutionary tendency had been the authors of the proposal for overthrowing the government and replacing it with national and regional defense councils.

When Largo Caballero and the UGT said "no," Durruti and the revolutionary wing then proposed that the CNT seize power in all regions where it had the power to do so on its own. this is what they did in fact in Aragon. Durruti argued that strategy this would force Largo Caballero and the Left Socialists to go along.

But many in the FAI wavered at that point, apparently feeling this strategy was too risky. So the traditionalist FAI wing ended up switching to the position of the moderate treintistas, of joining the Popular Front government. The traditonal anarcho-syndicalists, the revolutionary wing, and the treintistas were the three tendencies in the CNT.

The revolutionary wing included many of the militia leaders (Durruti, Mera, Vivancos, Sanz etc) and CNT writers and editors like Eduardo de Guzman (managing editor of the CNT's daily paper in Madrid), Liberto Callejas (managing editor of the CNT's daily paper in Barcelona) and Jaime Balius. Callejas and Balius were instrumental in forming Friends of Durruti in 1937.
The revolutionary wing also had support among the neighborhood defense groups in Barcelona. But apparently lacked sufficient support among the most important layer in the movement, the workshop delegates.



The CNT leaders were to the left of all the parties (except maybe the POUM) on most issues: Morocco, militia, government, etc. but (and this is a but that counts) what did they do when push came to shove? They backed down and accomodated to capitalist rule.


Again, who does "CNT leaders" refer to? The real weight in the CNT were the shop-level delegates, elected by the assemblies. CNT wasn't a bureaucratic trade union. As I said, among this layer, there were three anarchist political tendencies that had influence but the traditional anarcho-syndicalists had dominant influence in this layer and they wavered between the more revolutionary and more timid positions.

The CNT didn't "accommodate to capitalist rule." The capitalists had been expropriated. They accommodated to their ostensible state socialist allies. This was admittedly a serious mistake.

Fernando Claudin, the Spanish Marxist and ex-Eurocommunist, suggests that the problem was that the sort of viewpoint about political power expressed by the revolutonary wing was relatively new in Spanish anarcho-syndicalism, it had been worked out through experiences in the revolutionary process in the '30s. It had not been taught to anarcho-syndicalist militants for years, unlike the need to seize the means of production. so it was a question of lack of preparation or lack of agreement in the movement on a set of adequate steps to consolidate the revolution...which is essentially the analysis that the Friends of Durruti give in their pamphlet "Towards a New Revolution."

but it's worth keeping in mind that, according to this analysis, the problem wasn't that "the anarchists reject the taking of power," as ISO (and English speaking trots traditionally) claim. and that is the relevant point in regard to my reply to the ISO.

[RedTrackWorker]

Syndicat, I'm just going to respond to a couple of the points. If you think I'm missing something politically important, please direct my attention to it.
One question, you say that the POUM "backed Companys' proposal for an Anti-Fascist Militia Committee." It's been a while since I've closely reviewed this stuff, so maybe I knew this and forgot, but if you know a good reference on it, I would appreciate it.


what are you talking about? what "dual power institutions"?

I should've been more clear. For one, I was talking about Catalonia. Two, I was talking about the militia committees and the town/city committees, that the Generalitat disbanded. Victor Alba, POUM CCer, describes it all thusly:
"On November 16, with all resistance now vanquished...the Generalitat decreed the suppression of three thousand official posts in committees, people's tribunals, commissions, etc. The majority of them held by workers. The structure of working-class power was, thus, eliminated."


well, i would agree with that criticism of the majority. in reality there were three different anarchist tendencies in the CNT. the revolutionary tendency had been the authors of the proposal for overthrowing the government and replacing it with national and regional defense councils.
[snip]
But many in the FAI wavered at that point, apparently feeling this strategy was too risky. So the traditionalist FAI wing ended up switching to the position of the moderate treintistas, of joining the Popular Front government. The traditonal anarcho-syndicalists, the revolutionary wing, and the treintistas were the three tendencies in the CNT.


I assume you're familiar with Leninist and Trotskyist writings on "the center" and "centrism." So in this case, there's a moderate/right wing that supports the Popular Front, the "traditionals" after a time conciliate with the moderates/rights and what does the revolutionary wing do? If there is not a clear break, are they not taking responsibility for those actions as well? I didn't copy down the passage, but I distinctly remember reading an anarchist book on Durruti and how he would often be unhappy with the positions being taken by the CNT representatives in the government, but did he wage an organized fight against them? Did he go to the base of the CNT and say, "Comrades, our revolution is being betrayed"? If the "revolutionary" wing did not do this, are they not failing in their tasks?

[syndicat]

I should've been more clear. For one, I was talking about Catalonia. Two, I was talking about the militia committees and the town/city committees, that the Generalitat disbanded. Victor Alba, POUM CCer, describes it all thusly:
"On November 16, with all resistance now vanquished...the Generalitat decreed the suppression of three thousand official posts in committees, people's tribunals, commissions, etc. The majority of them held by workers. The structure of working-class power was, thus, eliminated."


I'm not sure about how much this was actually carried out. E.g., the Control Patrols, where under anarchist control, continued until the spring crisis in 1937 that was punctuated with the May Days.

Also, there were still 30,000 guns in possession of the CNT neighborhood defense organizations.

And the worker management bodies -- the unions basically -- were still in control of the factories, transportation, utilities, and so on.


I assume you're familiar with Leninist and Trotskyist writings on "the center" and "centrism." So in this case, there's a moderate/right wing that supports the Popular Front, the "traditionals" after a time conciliate with the moderates/rights and what does the revolutionary wing do? If there is not a clear break, are they not taking responsibility for those actions as well? I didn't copy down the passage, but I distinctly remember reading an anarchist book on Durruti and how he would often be unhappy with the positions being taken by the CNT representatives in the government, but did he wage an organized fight against them? Did he go to the base of the CNT and say, "Comrades, our revolution is being betrayed"? If the "revolutionary" wing did not do this, are they not failing in their tasks?

well, this is a trostkyist point of view. in fact the revolutionary wing in Catalonia did create an organization to fight to revive the revolutionary course by arguing for it within the ranks of the CNT. i'm talking about the Friends of Durruti Group, which had supposedly about 3,000 members in Catalonia.

Moreover, in Aragon the CNT did carry out the revolutionary program of Sept 3, 1936. The CNT village unions invoked a congress and elected a regional defense council, basically a workers government, for that region. this move was backed up by Durruti & his 14,000 member militia.

[RedTrackWorker]

The CNT didn't "accommodate to capitalist rule." The capitalists had been expropriated. They accommodated to their ostensible state socialist allies. This was admittedly a serious mistake.

To go back to this, are you saying that the CNT's decisions in their government posts on matters like Morocco were solely due to the Stalinists influence? That they weren't affected at all by the idea that the Republican government had to avoid antagonizing French and British imperialism? If so, how could the Stalinists exercise that much influence at the beginning?
Secondly, it's hard to actually split the question since the "state socialist" ally, the Stalinist CP, was itself acting as a conveyor belt for the capitalist system at that point. But my point is that it's hard for me to imagine it was solely the political weight of the CP that lead to the CNT representative's accommodations to capitalist rule, which had not been ended in Spain but tottered on the brink and more importantly, had not been ended in the world and it was that the Republicans were maneuvering in.


I'm not sure about how much this was actually carried out. E.g., the Control Patrols, where under anarchist control, continued until the spring crisis in 1937 that was punctuated with the May Days.
Yeah, the quote might go a little far, as the telephone exchange was an element of dual power for instance as well, but I think the point is that the more central institutions, like committees controlling towns were dismantled, which left the other elements open to be picked off one at a time.



well, this is a trostkyist point of view. in fact the revolutionary wing in Catalonia did create an organization to fight to revive the revolutionary course by arguing for it within the ranks of the CNT. i'm talking about the Friends of Durruti Group, which had supposedly about 3,000 members in Catalonia.

Obviously my opinion of the Friends of Durruti in the May Days is different than my general evaluation of what you call the revolutionary wing. But I fail to see how my general evaluation is a "Trotskyist" point of view, unless one acknowledges that as the label for the point of view that represents the working class's interests. Within many union leaderships, for instance, there are "dissident" elements--sometimes self-professed revolutionary ones--but if they preside, even as a "loyal opposition," over a union regime that is collaborating with the bosses and state in undermining the workers' gains and organization, do they not have responsibility before the workers for that? And does that not apply double to an organization with representatives in government?

[syndicat]

To go back to this, are you saying that the CNT's decisions in their government posts on matters like Morocco were solely due to the Stalinists influence?

the issue of Morocco came up before the CNT joined the government. Garcia Oliver and the CNT in Catalonia negotiated with a Moroccan national liberation group, the Moroccan Action Committee. They came to an agreement that the MAC would send native speakers to Spain to propagadize the army's Moroccan troops and in exchange Spain would declare Morocco independent. When they brought this to Largo Caballero in September, after he had been appointed Prime Minister, he was offended that he wasn't involved from the beginning and sat on the deal. This idiot's personal pique delayed the deal long enough for the French government to find out. They were outraged and made various threats, so Largo Caballero backed off on the deal. You can't blame the anarchists for that.



That they weren't affected at all by the idea that the Republican government had to avoid antagonizing French and British imperialism? If so, how could the Stalinists exercise that much influence at the beginning?

at the first meeting of the cabinet of ministers with the CNT, the CNT made a motion to authorize complete socialization of the economy under workers management and seizure of the banks. that's not exactly kow towing to imperialism. anyway, that was defeated because the Communists, social democrats, middle class Republicans and Basque Nationalists were against.

The CNT joined the government in Nov 1936 ostensibly to gain resources for their militias and self-managed industries. It has to be said this effort was a failure.



Secondly, it's hard to actually split the question since the "state socialist" ally, the Stalinist CP, was itself acting as a conveyor belt for the capitalist system at that point.

No it was not. The CP and Communist International had a two stage theory of the revolution in Spain. It was based on a permeationist strategy. The CP would permeate the officer corps of the army and police and gain control of those, after getting them rebuilt as conventional hierarchical bodies with themselves as top officers. they would then use this as a base to gain control of the state and move to nationalize the economy. by 1938 they had gained control of the UGT and used that union as the vehicle to push a program for complete nationalization of the economy. The various worker managed industries were being taken over by the state...they were using the fact that the industries were often losing money and were dependent on loans and credits from the state.



But my point is that it's hard for me to imagine it was solely the political weight of the CP that lead to the CNT representative's accommodations to capitalist rule, which had not been ended in Spain but tottered on the brink and more importantly, had not been ended in the world and it was that the Republicans were maneuvering in.


how was there "accommodation to capitalist rule"? the capitalists had been expropriated. the CPE was moving towards a completely nationalized economy. militarization of the militias was accomodation to growing statification, not to capitalism. it also meant they had no effective counter to the CPE's drive for state power.

all this talk about "accomodation to capitalist rule" is just trot dogma.

[syndicat]

How many Anarchist are aware of Worker Solidarity Alliance's policy of trashing native born low income workers? WSA members I've talked to regard econonomic deprivation among native born low income workers as being voluntary. Anyone wanting to see an end of poverty and unemployment should be a Socialist. Those in favor of death camps for native born victims of economic deprivation should become Anarchists.


this is simply a lie. economic deprivation is a product of the workings of capitalism...that is WSA's position. it isn't "voluntary" that the working class is subordinate to the capitalist class and has no independent source of income apart from seeking jobs. it isn't "voluntary" that millions have been thrown out of work in the current depression and face severe deprivation.

you accuse WSA of:
trashing native born low income workers. where is your evidence for this? i know of no one in WSA who holds such a view nor have we ever published anything to this effect.

WSA's political position is laid out in our Where We Stand statement:

http://workersolidarity.org/?page_id=78

Nothing not in this document is a position of the organization.

[RedTrackWorker]

the issue of Morocco came up before the CNT joined the government. Garcia Oliver and the CNT in Catalonia negotiated with a Moroccan national liberation group, the Moroccan Action Committee. They came to an agreement that the MAC would send native speakers to Spain to propagadize the army's Moroccan troops and in exchange Spain would declare Morocco independent. When they brought this to Largo Caballero in September, after he had been appointed Prime Minister, he was offended that he wasn't involved from the beginning and sat on the deal. This idiot's personal pique delayed the deal long enough for the French government to find out. They were outraged and made various threats, so Largo Caballero backed off on the deal. You can't blame the anarchists for that.

And Blum wanted to give the Spanish Republican government more support, and the generals said no and he backed off. And Toussaint wanted to extend the NYC 2005 transit strike and the rest of the union bureaucracy said no and he backed off. The CNT had good proposals and the head of government said no and they did what exactly?
Did they wage a political fight against Caballero on that basis?
And this points to the whole question of the nature of the Republican government. I say it was capitalist. What do you think it was? If it was controlled by the workers, why couldn't the CNTistas have waged a campaign in the workers' committees and win the majorities over to implement their policy?



No it was not. The CP and Communist International had a two stage theory of the revolution in Spain. It was based on a permeationist strategy. The CP would permeate the officer corps of the army and police and gain control of those, after getting them rebuilt as conventional hierarchical bodies with themselves as top officers. they would then use this as a base to gain control of the state and move to nationalize the economy. by 1938 they had gained control of the UGT and used that union as the vehicle to push a program for complete nationalization of the economy. The various worker managed industries were being taken over by the state...they were using the fact that the industries were often losing money and were dependent on loans and credits from the state.
The CP did not say "We're for the capitalist system." They said what you said, but I am saying the content of their policy was to support the world imperialist order, just as Stalin did not in the late 30's proclaim "capitalism"--on the contrary, he proclaimed "socialism" and that there were no longer classes, but the class content of his policies and actions were a violent social counterrevolution that re-established capitalist rule (though a "deformed" kind), as explained in our book and (indirectly) in the archival work of Rogovin.
The content of the CP's policies is summed up with their assault on the telephone exchange: removing the workers' management of a piece of society. They claimed a "two-stage" theory as a mask for leading the re-establishment of bourgeois social relations against that of workers' dual power.



how was there "accommodation to capitalist rule"? the capitalists had been expropriated. the CPE was moving towards a completely nationalized economy. militarization of the militias was accomodation to growing statification, not to capitalism. it also meant they had no effective counter to the CPE's drive for state power.

all this talk about "accomodation to capitalist rule" is just trot dogma.

It's all about looking at the world system--not just Spain. Trotsky called the Republic government figures the "shadow of the bourgeoisie." Just because there were not persons fully representing a traditional capitalist class does not mean the capitalist class was not ruling there, nor does it mean it does not rule in Cuba or China or other such countries. The material basis for capitalist rule in "Republican" Spain was basically eliminated in the July uprising and it maintained itself based on the world system and the political failure of the workers' movement to complete the social revolution. How do you have "statification" but not "capitalism"? The statification was based on some other kind of material base than capitalist social relations? I don't even understand how that's theoretically possible.

[syndicat]

The CNT had good proposals and the head of government said no and they did what exactly?


They proposed to replace the Republican state with worker congresses and defense councils, regionally and nationally. This would make the government accountable to the working class, and evict the middle class Republicans and Basque Nationalists.


The CP did not say "We're for the capitalist system." They said what you said, but I am saying the content of their policy was to support the world imperialist order,

this is just a vague assertion. odd that the capitalist imperialist powers didn't interpret Stalin's role that way.


How do you have "statification" but not "capitalism"? The statification was based on some other can of material base than capitalist social relations? I don't even understand how that's theoretically possible.

Statification of the economy is the basis of a bureaucratic ruling class, as existed in the USSR. Through a centrally planned economy administrated and controlled by a bureaucratic class. This class is based on a monopolization of decision-making authority in social production and the state and of key forms of expertise & knowledge relevant to control.

This class exists also in corporate capitalism but in a subordinate relation to the dominant capitalists. But you can have an economy where the bureaucratic class is the ruling class.

[ContrarianLemming]

the OP claims proudhonian coopertives are an "american" brand of lifestylists, yet proudhonians were the very first schools of anarchism.

[chegitz guevara]

The function of popular power is not "to suppress another class."

If you are keeping the capitalist class from returning to power, you are suppressing that class. That is precisely the function of the workers' state.

[syndicat]

If you are keeping the capitalist class from returning to power, you are suppressing that class. That is precisely the function of the workers' state. If you are keeping the capitalist class from returning to power, you are suppressing that class. That is precisely the function of the workers' state. Today 04:29If you are keeping the capitalist class from returning to power, you are suppressing that class. That is precisely the function of the workers' state. Today 04:29

If the capitalist class has been expropriated, it is no longer a capitalist class. You have people who are former capitalists maybe...if they haven't fled.

Popular power of the masses, through direct democracy and delegate congresses and their popular militia, will have to defeat any armed gangs or counter-revolutionary invasions and the like. But that's not the definitive function of popular power.

It's function is to be the means of the masses to self-manage their society, to make the rules for that society, to ensure that these rules are enforced and to adjudicate any disputes between groups that arise, and, in particular, to defend and sustain worker power in social production and an economic system that provides for the people and is geared to production for direct benefit, not private profit.

Moreover, the Leninist idea that the function of a state is an "instrument of coercion by one class to suppress another" is true only of states, that is, where there is a class-divided society. In a state the role of the state is to defend the interests of a dominating, exploiting class. An authentic socialism is not a class-divided society. A class-divided society exists only where there is a dominating class that does have power in social production over the immediate producers.

The reason Lenin offered that formula in "The State and Revolution" is because he envisioned continued existence of the capitalist class for some years and he imagined that somehow the working class could be "in power" during that time, despite being subordinate and exploited in work...a nonsensical idea.

[RED DAVE]

If the capitalist class has been expropriated, it is no longer a capitalist class. You have people who are former capitalists maybe...if they haven't fled.Comrade, suppose we have a hideous situation where (1) the workers overthrow capitalism, expropriating the capitalist class and achieve workers power; (2) after a brief period of time, the workers state or workers society or socialism or whatever you want to call it is overthrown and the capitalists return to power.

Question: while the capitalists were out of power were they still a capitalist class or not? Did they begin as a class, cease to be a class and then reconstitute themselves as a class?

Or, while they were out of power, did they retain their identity as a class, and then use that identity to organize themselves and seize power back? Now I'm begging the question when I use the term "identity." This would constitute, while the capitalists were in power, the actual fact of power which is constituted by the power to control society, ultimately through armed force.

Now, to the extent that the capitalist class still retains the ability to organize and command an armed force, as the expropriated ruling class did after the Russian Revolution, they still must constitute a class. As they lose this ability, they dissolve as a class, through time, hopefully through a brief time.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

well, there is an objective and subjective side to class. The iobjective side is the actual class relationship, which is based on a set of existing institutions. The objective side also includes any resources the capitalists have available to them. If they are expropriated, they may still have external resources outside the territory...including resources of class allies in other countries.

In the Spanish case, the capitalists were expropriated and most of the major capitalists and landowners fled. But the fascist army was still an objective class resource of immense importance and that army was being supplied and aided by American corporations and the fascist states in Portugal, Italy and Germany...iincluding a lot more military aid than was ever provided to the "whites" in the Russian civil war.

But if there is a popular power based on worker assemblies and worker congresses and a democratically controlled militia...the position advocated by the anarchosyndicalist revolutionaries in Spain...and if this power has consolidated its position and workers have exproperiated the capitalists and are managing the industries, there is no objective institution left of a dominating, exploiting class in that territory. And thus there is no state.

A state is a hierarchical, bureaucratic set of institutions that is, as Engels said, "estranged from society" and "ruling over" it. From the fact that the popular power acts to suppress the external counter-revolutionary army and other violent attempts of the capitalists to restore their system, it doesn't follow that popular power is a state since this is dependent upon its internal structure, its relationship to the population of the territory in which it is hegemonic.

This is why Lenin's formula in "The State and Revolution" -- a "state is an instrument for the repression of one class by another" -- is fatally ambiguous.

[crashcourse]

Anyone read the debate in the newest ISR? I thought Eric Kerl didn't engage with a lot of the substance, personally.

[RedTrackWorker]

They proposed to replace the Republican state with worker congresses and defense councils, regionally and nationally. This would make the government accountable to the working class, and evict the middle class Republicans and Basque Nationalists.
They proposed X and how did they dispose? A proposal at the top and what did they do at the base. At least in Catalonia, did not the CNT have the ability to initiate the workers, soldier and peasants creating committees (including regional and other central bodies) to run society? Whereas there were many, many such committees that exercised effective control in Catalonia for a while but the Generalitat remained and was able to exercise more and more control (with the help of the CNT and POUM representatives on it). How is that acting responsibly toward the working class and its interests?


this is just a vague assertion. odd that the capitalist imperialist powers didn't interpret Stalin's role that way.
This traces the Stalinist-democratic-reformist roll back of dual power in detail:
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol4/no1-2/freund2.htm
And like I said, see our book. I don't necessarily expect to read the book, but it's a bit unfair to call it a "vague assertion"!
But here's a small piece of very concrete proof: WW2 and after, take, for instance, the Yalta Conference. Churchill, FDR and Stalin divide up the world: is the image of world imperialist leaders negotiating with an antagonistic social system? Yes, they still considered Russia "socialist"--but in their own empiricist way, they had worked out they could "deal" with it in a certain way (like Nixon's handshake with Mao), a way that is not different in any fundamental way than they deal with other capitalist states.


Statification of the economy is the basis of a bureaucratic ruling class, as existed in the USSR. Through a centrally planned economy administrated and controlled by a bureaucratic class. This class is based on a monopolization of decision-making authority in social production and the state and of key forms of expertise & knowledge relevant to control.

Look, I agree that a statified economy can be the basis of a bureaucratic ruling class. The question I asked is: what is the basis of statification? It cannot be the ruling class it creates later! You claim there was no longer "capitalism" in Republican Spain--so who and what was doing the statification and on what material basis?

[syndicat]

They proposed X and how did they dispose? A proposal at the top and what did they do at the base.

wrong. you apparently don't know how the CNT worked. when the CNT held a plenary, they had meetings of the local unions to work out a position. their delegates then took this to a national plenary...a meeting of the delegates. no program could be imposed or decided bureaucratically in the CNT. the decision to propose national and regional defense councils was approved by a national plenary of delegates Sept 3, 1936.

in Aragon, the CNT village unions took the initiative to carry out this program in their region. They invoked a congress of delegates from all the collectivized villages (more than 400) in that region, with the backing of the CNT militias there. This congress elected the regional defense council.



At least in Catalonia, did not the CNT have the ability to initiate the workers, soldier and peasants creating committees (including regional and other central bodies) to run society?

more than that. in many cities the CNT unions elected revolutionary committees to replace the local government. workers throughout industry and services expropriated the capitalists and set up structures for worker management based on assemblies and elected delegate committees.



Whereas there were many, many such committees that exercised effective control in Catalonia for a while but the Generalitat remained and was able to exercise more and more control (with the help of the CNT and POUM representatives on it). How is that acting responsibly toward the working class and its interests?

when the CNT joined the government of the Generalitat Sept 26, 1936, this wouldn't have happened without the agreement of a regional plenary of delegates. If the rank and file workshop delegates were for overthrowing the Generalitat and creating a regional worker congress and defense council...as the revolutionary tendency in the CNT urged...it would have happened. It was a mistake in my opinion to retreat on their program, and in the opinion of the revolutionary wing in the CNT, but obviously they didn't have the majority behind them at that point.

[RedTrackWorker]

when the CNT joined the government of the Generalitat Sept 26, 1936, this wouldn't have happened without the agreement of a regional plenary of delegates. If the rank and file workshop delegates were for overthrowing the Generalitat and creating a regional worker congress and defense council...as the revolutionary tendency in the CNT urged...it would have happened. It was a mistake in my opinion to retreat on their program, and in the opinion of the revolutionary wing in the CNT, but obviously they didn't have the majority behind them at that point.

Is there a record of such a delegate meeting to join the Generalitat and of what happened there?
But more to the point, I think this last post of yours well illustrates a point the LRP makes: relying on a "from below" perspective ends up blaming the workers. I see it as a failure of the political leadership, not just of the reformists or moderates, but of the revolutionary "wings" all-round (the CNT, the POUM, and the various splinters from the Fourth International). If it's just a case of the ranks not having been convinced, I would doubt the possibility of social revolution seeing as the Spanish revolution was the most far-reaching example of dual power seen in history. Under what more favorable conditions could there be to overthrow a bourgeois government than existed in Catalonia in September 1936? But seeing what happened in Spain as part of the international class struggle, which requires the cohesion of the revolutionary workers around an international program, which was impeded in Spain for specific historical reasons we can learn from, I remain optimistic. If the revolutionary wing of the CNT could not prevail in Spain in 1936, when could such a grouping ever prevail?

[syndicat]

According to Fernando Claudin, the Spanish Marxist and ex-Eurocommunist, the problem was lack of preparation of this idea of an alternative worker social power. He points out that the anarchists in Spain had preached for decades about the necessity of the workers seizing the means of production in a revolution. And they did exactly that on their own initiative, without any instructions from CNT "leaders", when they had the chance.

But, he points out, the idea that workers had to consolidate the revolution quickly by replacing the old state with a new structure for their power over society hadn't been discussed by the revolutionary anarcho-syndicalists in Spain in previous decades. they hadn't developed a concrete set of steps for this in the way they had for self-management of industry. The revolutionary wing of the CNT did work out these ideas in the actual situation of the revoluion in the summer of 1936, but they had not had time to educate and develop an appreciation of the need for certain concrete steps along this line among the rank and file activists in the union. so there was not sufficient understanding and agreement in the union around a program of concrete steps, like the national and regional defense councils. thus there wasn't the same degree of consensus around this as there was around worker seizure and self-management of industry.

so it was a question of inadequate preparation...ironically as the anarcho-syndicalists had always talked about the importance of preparation and education.

This is also the analysis that the Friends of Durruti group (a grouping of the revolutionary wing of anarchosyndicalists) came to in their pamphlet "Hacia una revolucion nueva." their way of putting it was to say the CNT movement "had lyricism aplenty" but not "a concrete theory" of what to do.

[RedTrackWorker]

But, he points out, the idea that workers had to consolidate the revolution quickly by replacing the old state with a new structure for their power over society hadn't been discussed by the revolutionary anarcho-syndicalists in Spain in previous decades. they hadn't developed a concrete set of steps for this in the way they had for self-management of industry. The revolutionary wing of the CNT did work out these ideas in the actual situation of the revoluion in the summer of 1936, but they had not had time to educate and develop an appreciation of the need for certain concrete steps along this line among the rank and file activists in the union. so there was not sufficient understanding and agreement in the union around a program of concrete steps, like the national and regional defense councils. thus there wasn't the same degree of consensus around this as there was around worker seizure and self-management of industry.

I think it's obvious I think the "not enough time to prepare" theory is inadequate in explaining what happened--for one, it takes a national view of the question, but so we don't go round and round too much, I'll make a further study of the revolutionary wing of the CNT before responding in depth (not necessarily soon).

In that regard, I have not read the "Fresh Revolution" pamphlet yet and will do so. I have read parts of Guillamon's book on the "Friends" and will finish it--is there another you recommend more? And is http://workersolidarity.org/archive/spain.pdf WSA's main article on the issue?

But for now I must ask, how is what you are saying in the above quote different than what the Bolshevik-Leninists/Fourth Internationalists were calling for?

[syndicat]

yes, the spain.pdf is WSA's main currently piece on this but it needs updating. (I wrote it and am still accumulating new information.)

I'm kind of fuzzy about what the Leninist/Bolshevik group proposed. I think they proposed soviets. A problem with soviets is that it empowers only workers. In that era especially many women didn't work for wages, and it would disempower many people. The CNT proposed a dual decision-making structure to build the new society: regional and national worker congresses, and local councils (called "free municipalities") that would be based on village or neighborhood assemblies, based on residence.

The regional congress would be roughly equivalent to the soviets in that they would consist of delegates elected from worker assemblies in workplaces.

of course this is in addition to the worker assemblies and elected delegate committees that were set up to manage the various industries. these would be represented in the congresses.

[RedTrackWorker]

Morrow's book has the leaflet from the May Days here in this chapter:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch10.htm
That particular leaflet isn't clear on the "power demand" but the relevant line is "Committees of revolutionary defence in the shops, factories, districts". Soviets do not have to just be work-place based. The more general approach in Spain was to cal for soldiers, workers and peasants soviets (and the worker soviet could be 'district' based), and in more recent situations, we have pointed to the need for soviets of the workers and urban poor (say in Iraq, and I would guess you know we don't necessarily consider the urban poor as all workers, some are and some aren't but just as with peasants uniting them in struggle is and will be key to victory in many situations).
The specific electoral mechanism (factory/worker's district/apportioning of votes) can be very important but is secondary. In Spain, I think that the problem wasn't so much what kind of committees but that the committees/councils/soviets/proto-soviets did not sweep away the final remnants of the bourgeois government and take power in the name of the committees. In the early stages, just the militia committees taking power probably would've been the correct tactical approach (as Marx suggested for the Paris Commune). But the main point is that their proposal in terms of delegates and congresses and such wouldn't necessarily be counterposed to what you're saying (though in terms of what was best for the struggle, I'd want to look more at the particular time and context, your proposal doesn't mention militia committees for instance).
Another limitation of the committees, relating to the electoral mechanism specifically, that I'm trying to find more details on--and maybe you can help me here--is that many were appointed by the parties/unions rather than elected from the base, though I've also seen references that say in Catalonia at least that that wasn't true. Do you know much about this?

[syndicat]

many were appointed by the parties/unions rather than elected from the base, though I've also seen references that say in Catalonia at least that that wasn't true. Do you know much about this?

sometimes the existing committees were not especially democratic, consisting of representatives of parties and unions as you point out.

The revolutionary wing of the CNT did not propose that the existing committees "take power". they proposed congresses that would consist of delegates elected by the base assemblies, so it would be the masses as a whole who would take power. if you read "Towards a Fresh Revolution", they explain that the defense councils would be elected by the union assemblies at the base.

[crashcourse]

I just want to point out that Hater has logged in since posting this so he's been back. These remarks are baseless. Hater hasn't supported them because he can't. This is some pretty seriously unprincipled behavior, a discredit to whatever political group Hater is affiliated with.


How many Anarchist are aware of Worker Solidarity Alliance's policy of trashing native born low income workers? WSA members I've talked to regard econonomic deprivation among native born low income workers as being voluntary. Anyone wanting to see an end of poverty and unemployment should be a Socialist. Those in favor of death camps for native born victims of economic deprivation should become Anarchists.

[syndicat]

Look, I agree that a statified economy can be the basis of a bureaucratic ruling class. The question I asked is: what is the basis of statification? It cannot be the ruling class it creates later! You claim there was no longer "capitalism" in Republican Spain--so who and what was doing the statification and on what material basis?

i overlooked this question. simple answer: the Communist Party. in my view Leninist politics and practice, and the hierarchical party form they support, tends to be a bureaucratic class in embryo, that is, this is what that sort of politics prefigures.

[Jose Gracchus]

i overlooked this question. simple answer: the Communist Party. in my view Leninist politics and practice, and the hierarchical party form they support, tends to be a bureaucratic class in embryo, that is, this is what that sort of politics prefigures.

Very good point, this is fleshed out properly in its original pre-figurative form, and the setting of the original precedent in Russia, by Simon Pirani in The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920-24: Soviet workers and the new communist elite.

To wit:

"This stratum [the 'ruling stratum - later class'], as it existed during the Russian civil war, could not meaningfully be called a ruling class: a ruling elite formed around the party, Red army commanders and state officials, yes, but no social class with clearly defined collective interests. Nevertheless, despite this absence of a ruling class, exploitative social relationships based on alienated labour reappeared. The state played a central role in this. As the Bolsheviks contended with the economic breakdown, the campaigned, and turned the trades unions and factory committees to campaign for labour discipline; and they combined labour mobilization techniques with labour compulsion measures, including militarization...." (p. 6)Further:


"The political crisis of 1921 pushed the Bolsheviks to adapt to the NEP which in turn paved the way for economic recovery. The Bolsheviks' chosen path was to conduct the economic revival under the leadership of the party and the state; the working class was consigned to the area of production and kept out of the process of political decision-making. A social contract, as I describe it in Chapter 4, took shape, and was accepted by most workers: living standards improved consistently, in exchange for both increased labour discipline and productivity, and the surrender of political power to the party. This is the central theme of this book. The working class gained in terms of living standards, but paid a heavy price in terms of its collective consciousness and political development." (p. 8)
...
"It has been argued above that Russia during the civil war had no ruling class. The gap was not properly filled in the post-civil war period either. The landed gentry and capitalist class had been broken up. The new Soviet ruling class had not yet coalesced from the groups of officials who would join its ranks. The working class ruled in name only, ceding political power to the Bolshevik party. That party found itself, and the state that it controlled, playing an extraordinarily important role, not only in rebuilding the economy, but in recreating a ruling class. Moshe Lwein observed that it was a superstructure, 'suspended temporarily in a kind of vacuum', that had to recreate its own base." (p. 9)Lastly, on the formation of that 'new ruling class':

"This book endeavours to place changes in Bolshevik politics and ideology, including the use of mobilization techniques, in the context of changing class relations. In counterpoint to working-class formation, the new Soviet ruling class was taking shape. The party elite acted as a centre of gravity around which this class gathered, and the party as a whole adapted its policies to the elite's interests. The later chapters of this book trace this process as it unfolded in the first years of NEP. Industrial workers and other party activists were sucked into the party-state apparatus, a process that the Moscow party secretary compared dispairingly to the action of a pump. Other social groups that went on to become constituernt elements of the Soviet ruling class - factory managers, party cell leaders, and specialists - found themselves, from the start, in an antagonistic relationship with workers. Notwithstanding the discomfort felt by many party members at these hostilities, the party as an organization reinforced the evolving hierarchy. At the same time, the party elite consolidated its control of the whole party, a process that culminated in the defeat of the left opposition in 1923. Between the civil war and the mid 1920s, the party was transformed from a military-political fighting organization to an administrative machine for implementing decisions taken at the top. in terms of socialist theory, it is concluded, that, in view of the role that the state played in these events, the characterization of its as a 'workers' state' needs to be questioned." (p. 12)Hence the risks to be had in any 'unitary' conception of political leadership, organization, participation, and coordination (e.g., The One True Workers' Party).

[Hater of Dilettantes]

Little late getting back with you. I haven't logged on to RevLeft for a while. I have talked with WSA members who have utter contempt for native born low income people. OK, no, they didn't call for death camps. I took offense at their attitude of implying that native born low income workers were less than human. What is the first step to extermination of a group of people? Dehumanization of that particular group. Anyone, in or out of WSA who says that poverty only affects immigrants, and all native born in this country are one big happy middle class family has no business in Leftist politics, of ANY tendency. In all fairness to WSA maybe this attitude of disdain toward anyone not "making it in 'Murica" is only endemic to the Northern California WSA.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Very good point, this is fleshed out properly in its original pre-figurative form, and the setting of the original precedent in Russia, by Simon Pirani in The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920-24: Soviet workers and the new communist elite.

[...]

Hence the risks to be had in any 'unitary' conception of political leadership, organization, participation, and coordination (e.g., The One True Workers' Party).

Like you said, they are "risks." By your sarcastic label at the end there, I presume you mean little sect-lets claiming the label and not the Real Parties = Real Movements model that necessitates bureaucracy as both organization (revolutionary careerism, yes the irony) and process.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Just noticed this thread as it was resurrected from the grave. Syndicat, I loved reading the exchange you had with Kerl that was published at the end of the Sept-Oct 2010 ISR. As someone who was struggling with cohering an identity for myself and really solidifying my politics, the exchange weighed on my mind quite a bit. It's awesome to see that there are some people who think in depth about the issues of sectarianism and can have an intelligent conversation about theory and practice on this website. In my browsing as a new member I've seen way too much unproductive bickering and very little intellectual debate of this caliber.

[Jose Gracchus]

Like you said, they are "risks." By your sarcastic label at the end there, I presume you mean little sect-lets claiming the label and not the Real Parties = Real Movements model that necessitates bureaucracy as both organization (revolutionary careerism, yes the irony) and process.

I have severe misgivings about any doctrine that circumscribes the worker movement and working-class activity normatively to a single mandatory or obligatory organization or institution, outside of which or transcending which, legitimate activity by revolutionary workers is inconceivable. I consider such a configuration inevitably to be abused. Take that for what you may, I do not know whether you'd consider your theories on the revolutionary movement to be contrary.

[syndicat]

Hater of Diletantes wrote:


Little late getting back with you. I haven't logged on to RevLeft for a while. I have talked with WSA members who have utter contempt for native born low income people. OK, no, they didn't call for death camps. I took offense at their attitude of implying that native born low income workers were less than human. What is the first step to extermination of a group of people? Dehumanization of that particular group. Anyone, in or out of WSA who says that poverty only affects immigrants, and all native born in this country are one big happy middle class family has no business in Leftist politics, of ANY tendency. In all fairness to WSA maybe this attitude of disdain toward anyone not "making it in 'Murica" is only endemic to the Northern California WSA. 24th December 2010 20:24Little late getting back with you. I haven't logged on to RevLeft for a while. I have talked with WSA members who have utter contempt for native born low income people. OK, no, they didn't call for death camps. I took offense at their attitude of implying that native born low income workers were less than human. What is the first step to extermination of a group of people? Dehumanization of that particular group. Anyone, in or out of WSA who says that poverty only affects immigrants, and all native born in this country are one big happy middle class family has no business in Leftist politics, of ANY tendency. In all fairness to WSA maybe this attitude of disdain toward anyone not "making it in 'Murica" is only endemic to the Northern California WSA.

you're a liar. I'm a member of WSA Northern California group. No one in this group holds such a view. If they did, they would be in violation of the WSA's own politics.

a diletante is someone who isn't serious. a person who engages in intentional lying about other revolutionaries or un-backed-up rumor mongering isn't serious. so it seems Hater must suffer from serious self-hatred.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have severe misgivings about any doctrine that circumscribes the worker movement and working-class activity normatively to a single mandatory or obligatory organization or institution, outside of which or transcending which, legitimate activity by revolutionary workers is inconceivable. I consider such a configuration inevitably to be abused. Take that for what you may, I do not know whether you'd consider your theories on the revolutionary movement to be contrary.

I myself do not know.

I suggested the official party-movement, but I also supported a Sociopolitical Syndicate operating alongside this official party-movement. Both organizations are party-movements in substance:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sociopolitical-syndicalism-additional-t143119/index.html


In conjunction with an official party-movement, it would be capable of organizing alternative mass media, an alternative culture, and all the related in-house bureaucracy as a means of preparatory organization for realistically replacing the existing bureaucratic organs of state administration. Unlike an official party-movement, it would have a much closer relationship with strike activity and not even tactically participate in modern elections.

[Jose Gracchus]

Little late getting back with you. I haven't logged on to RevLeft for a while. I have talked with WSA members who have utter contempt for native born low income people. OK, no, they didn't call for death camps. I took offense at their attitude of implying that native born low income workers were less than human. What is the first step to extermination of a group of people? Dehumanization of that particular group. Anyone, in or out of WSA who says that poverty only affects immigrants, and all native born in this country are one big happy middle class family has no business in Leftist politics, of ANY tendency. In all fairness to WSA maybe this attitude of disdain toward anyone not "making it in 'Murica" is only endemic to the Northern California WSA.

LOL. Yeah anecdotal, no-detail, "sure believe me fellas" arguing is considered credible around here? This is so obviously a farce.

[crashcourse]

Little late getting back with you. I haven't logged on to RevLeft for a while. I have talked with WSA members who have utter contempt for native born low income people. OK, no, they didn't call for death camps. I took offense at their attitude of implying that native born low income workers were less than human. What is the first step to extermination of a group of people? Dehumanization of that particular group. Anyone, in or out of WSA who says that poverty only affects immigrants, and all native born in this country are one big happy middle class family has no business in Leftist politics, of ANY tendency. In all fairness to WSA maybe this attitude of disdain toward anyone not "making it in 'Murica" is only endemic to the Northern California WSA.

Name some names and provide a bit of detail - who said what when - and we'll definitely sort this out internally, because we take this shit seriously. Otherwise you're a fucking liar. Since you basically admitted that you made up that shit about death camps, and since you did log in to RevLeft after I posted a rebuttal to you, I'm pretty sure you won't back this up. I'd like to be proven wrong though.

[Hater of Dilettantes]

Apparantly your members on the west coast hold the position that economic deprivation is non existent among the native born. This is trashing native born workers who are having a hard time economically. This position objectively claims that anyone who is native born and not making in 'murica, has only themselves to blame. This is a right wing position.

[Hater of Dilettantes]

If the position of the WSA is not supportive of trashing native born workers, in poverty, and this position is only reflective of a couple of rogue members on the west coast, then I'll withdraw the charge.

[syndicat]

If the position of the WSA is not supportive of trashing native born workers, in poverty, and this position is only reflective of a couple of rogue members on the west coast, then I'll withdraw the charge.


There are no "rogue members on the West Coast" who hold such a position. The politics of WSA are defined by our "Where We Stand" statement:

http://workersolidarity.org/archive/



Apparantly your members on the west coast hold the position that economic deprivation is non existent among the native born. This is trashing native born workers who are having a hard time economically. This position objectively claims that anyone who is native born and not making in 'murica, has only themselves to blame. This is a right wing position.


you're lying. there is no WSA member on the west coast who holds such a position. it's inconsistent with WSA's politics. i live on the west coast and know members here. I've pointed this out before. no serious revolutionary engages in this kind of unprincipled, anonymous rumor-mongering.