Nicky Scarfo
15th April 2006, 22:37
Disunity among advocates for worker revolution has long been a source of consternation and much debate amongst socialists. While it’s understandable, unavoidable, and perhaps in some respects even desirable, to have serious disagreements, irreconcilable ideological differences, debates and arguments amongst various socialist currents, the question remains—how do we prevent these disagreements from devolving into sectarianism and counter-productive infighting that only benefits the ruling class?
I think it is worth taking a look at the history first, and why don’t we start by laying out the various socialist camps here—
The Two Major Camps—the Anarchists and the Leninists.
I. Anarchists
Subcategories (including only socialist subcurrents, modern anarchocapitalists or fascist/Third Positionist forms excluded):
A. “Individualist” and pre-Krotopkin anarchists. A broad category to be sure, and would include everyone from Tucker to Proudhon to Bakunin. But such was the state of anarchism before the advent of Anarchosyndicalism and Anarchocommunism.
B. Anarchocommunists
C. Anarchosyndicalists
II. Leninists
Subcategories:
A. Trotskyists
B. Anti-Revisionists (Stalinists, Maoists, Hoxhaists, Kimists)
C. Post-Stalinists (Khrushchevites, Castroists and anyone following the “Moscow line” after Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin)
Smaller Camps
I. Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists
I am not referring to modern SD political parties like Labour or the SPD, but how SD parties originally constituted themselves—those who believed socialism could won at the ballot box and implemented through incremental reform. The Socialist Party, USA is a good modern example. It could also include mid-stage SD movements which encouraged “mixed” economic systems or “market socialism”—Sweden is a good example, and syndicalist elements can often be found in such systems.
II. Reform Communists
Closely related to the Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, Reform Communists are formerly Moscow-aligned or Eurocommunist Parties that have chosen electoral action as a path to socialism. This ranges from the independent political action of European Communist Parties to the Popular Frontist support of bourgeois political parties that the CPUSA engages in.
III. Other Revolutionary Marxists
This includes, but is not limited to:
A. DeLeonists
B. Reform or Council Communists
C. Anti-Leninist Bolsheviks like the Workers Opposition and the Democratic Centralists
Many of the above may properly be said to have also been strongly influenced by Anarchosyndicalist ideas.
IV. Other Socialists
Anyone who does not fit neatly into the above categories or holds an ideology that is some combination of the above currents, excluding National Socialists, Fascists and Third-Positionists. This could include the current Bolivaran Revolution, which includes elements of both traditional Democratic Socialism/Social Democracy and Syndicalist/Council Communist ideas. And although Tito was technically a post-Stalinist Leninist, he also incorporated some Democratic Socialist ideas of “market socialism” or a “mixed system” and the traditional Syndicalist-leaning organization of the factory committee.
So how have these various currents dealt with the problem of organizational unity?
Let’s start with the Anarchists. In my opinion the Anarchists have traditionally been poor organizers vis-à-vis the Leninists. Their laudable commitment to non-hierarchical forms ensures democracy and minimizes the chances of organizational splintering (as the organizations are decentralized to begin with). But their nearly religious devotion to their ideology has, on many occasions, prevented them from working in coalition with other socialists and has limited their organizational ability to make critical decisions on how to expend resources in a manner which affects the entire movement.
The notable exception to my admittedly broad generalization of Anarchists (and I will continue to make such broad generalizations of all currents, so feel free to note the exceptions when I miss them) are the Anarchosyndicalists. I believe that the revolutionary union was Anarchism’s answer to the Marxist revolutionary party as a vehicle for socialist revolution.
Early anarchosyndicalists were able to build effective mass organizations by accepting that some very limited hierarchy (through popularly elected committees, officers, and other representatives that were beholden to the general membership) was necessary for effective class struggle. In the case of the early IWW and later the CNT, they were also able to work in coalitions (although in the latter case, many Anarchists and Troskyists would argue that this was precisely the cause of the CNT’s downfall, but more on that later). In any case, with the rise of Leninism, anarchosyndicalism eventually moved to the background of the revolutionary socialist movement, with the short-lived exception of the Spanish Revolution.
Let’s now move onto the Leninists. Lenin’s major contribution was the idea of the vanguard party—that only a tightly-disciplined and centralized organization that worked within the mass organizations could keep those organizations moving in a revolutionary direction despite state repression and internal disagreements as to the nature of socialist reform or revolution within the mass organizations.
In terms of seizing state power, the strategy was very effective. So effective that the Fascists and Nazis modeled themselves organizationally on the Bolsheviks. Even the current organizational eminence grise of the Republican Party and modern American conservative movement, Grover Norquist, cites Lenin as an important influence.
As to the effectiveness of actually creating socialism, I would say the Leninist model was an utter failure, but that’s for another post.
But it seems the strategy of the vanguard party only works in singular countries during revolutionary conditions and does not function well in the absence of an authoritative leader.
After the death of Trotsky, the Trotskyist movement was plagued with crippling organizational splinters. Same goes with the Maoist movement after their revered leader bit the dust.
The Moscow-aligned parties met with some success in capturing state power in the Third World mostly in the context of anti-colonial/neocolonial struggle, but this is surely due to the resources being pumped to them by the USSR. Without such a superpower benefactor, I doubt any of those movements would have been successful, and may have succumbed to the same fracturing of the Maoists and Trotskyists.
But no Leninist movement has been able to sustain itself as an international movement without eventually succumbing to organizational fracturing. The only exception are those parties which were directly financed by Moscow. In any case, not one of them has built socialism and most nations where they were successful remained authoritarian states at best or became totalitarian states at worst.
And after the fall of the Soviet Union, most of these organizations transformed themselves into Reform Communists, if they had not already. Leninism, as a viable ideological system and movement has had its place in the sun and I don’t think it’s coming back in any big way.
As to the Social Democrats, well the major organizations have, for the most part, degenerated into capitalist parties. Their desire to work in coalition with non-socialist elements and their failure to advocate for the complete and immediate expropriation of the employer class was ultimately their downfall as the capitalists eventually co-opted them entirely, and disposed of their socialist platforms. Labour, SPD and the like no longer make any pretense of seeking a socialist society. The smaller parties are not doing much and are operating within an ideology that has largely been discredited by revolutionaries and reformers alike. Much the same can be said of the Reform Communists, though they keep up appearances of seeking a socialist end stage to society.
The “Other Revolutionary Marxist” categories largely includes organizations or movements which are dead for all practical purposes.
It is the very broad category of “Other Socialists” from which is likely to emerge the next big, international social progress movement in my opinion. But that ideological movement has not yet coalesced. Perhaps the seeds of it are being planted in Latin America right now, but perhaps not. Only time will tell.
So, back to the original question—
When that next big movement comes, how are we to avoid the mistakes of the past? How are we to maintain enough unity on the left to overthrow the current system but maintain a cohesive and clear program for structural change? How do we disagree without organizational fractures and counterproductive infighting? How do we know when it will be appropriate to work in coalition and when it will be counterproductive (like the CNT’s entry into the Popular Front)?
Big questions, no easy answers. But I thought I’d start a discussion on it all the same.
Though I don’t have any suggestions for the “big” answers, I have a suggestion on how we may start to improve dialogue between the various currents (though it may be unrealistic on my part).
First off, we need to recognize that in this stage in history no socialist ideology can decisively lay claim to being “effective”. It’s clear that all of the historical currents have had their strengths, their weaknesses, and none have yet created socialism. Secondly, I think we should recognize that we could ALL be wrong and the movement towards socialist society may take place in a manner none of us anticipated.
Finally, we should drop the tired, pejorative clichés we hurl at each other. Calling a fellow socialist “bourgeois”, “capitalist”, “revisionist”, “reformist” or “counterrevolutionary” does nothing to add to intelligent discourse. Quite the opposite, it focuses the discussion on accusations of ideological deviationism, defense from those accusations, and it eventually shuts off dialogue/intelligent debate and devolves into personal attacks.
We need to recognize that if someone claims to be an advocate for socialism, they probably are, regardless of our disagreements about how to get there or what the end stage is gonna look like. The exception would be when the "socialist" label is a mask for fascism. But if someone advocates for the abolition of class society, we need to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if we think their ideas are pure garbage. Down the line, when the fall of capitalism is imminent, unless one there is one singular movement leading the struggle, the various currents of socialism may indeed become mortal enemies as they struggle to fill the vaccum. But until that day comes, we need to act as allies at least in the loosest sense of the term, even if we are pursuing different paths.
Infighting should be kept to a minimum simply because it more often then not distracts from organization and movement building, and gives the capitalists and reactionaries more room to gang up on us. If we don't learn to get a handle on it, when revolutionary conditions arise, we're gonna see the extreme right take advantage while we are fractured and fighting each other, just as they did in Germany and Spain.
I think the first step is learning how to disagree and debate without polemics. Yeah, I know, that’s a big thing to expect, but then again, so is socialist revolution.
I think it is worth taking a look at the history first, and why don’t we start by laying out the various socialist camps here—
The Two Major Camps—the Anarchists and the Leninists.
I. Anarchists
Subcategories (including only socialist subcurrents, modern anarchocapitalists or fascist/Third Positionist forms excluded):
A. “Individualist” and pre-Krotopkin anarchists. A broad category to be sure, and would include everyone from Tucker to Proudhon to Bakunin. But such was the state of anarchism before the advent of Anarchosyndicalism and Anarchocommunism.
B. Anarchocommunists
C. Anarchosyndicalists
II. Leninists
Subcategories:
A. Trotskyists
B. Anti-Revisionists (Stalinists, Maoists, Hoxhaists, Kimists)
C. Post-Stalinists (Khrushchevites, Castroists and anyone following the “Moscow line” after Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin)
Smaller Camps
I. Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists
I am not referring to modern SD political parties like Labour or the SPD, but how SD parties originally constituted themselves—those who believed socialism could won at the ballot box and implemented through incremental reform. The Socialist Party, USA is a good modern example. It could also include mid-stage SD movements which encouraged “mixed” economic systems or “market socialism”—Sweden is a good example, and syndicalist elements can often be found in such systems.
II. Reform Communists
Closely related to the Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, Reform Communists are formerly Moscow-aligned or Eurocommunist Parties that have chosen electoral action as a path to socialism. This ranges from the independent political action of European Communist Parties to the Popular Frontist support of bourgeois political parties that the CPUSA engages in.
III. Other Revolutionary Marxists
This includes, but is not limited to:
A. DeLeonists
B. Reform or Council Communists
C. Anti-Leninist Bolsheviks like the Workers Opposition and the Democratic Centralists
Many of the above may properly be said to have also been strongly influenced by Anarchosyndicalist ideas.
IV. Other Socialists
Anyone who does not fit neatly into the above categories or holds an ideology that is some combination of the above currents, excluding National Socialists, Fascists and Third-Positionists. This could include the current Bolivaran Revolution, which includes elements of both traditional Democratic Socialism/Social Democracy and Syndicalist/Council Communist ideas. And although Tito was technically a post-Stalinist Leninist, he also incorporated some Democratic Socialist ideas of “market socialism” or a “mixed system” and the traditional Syndicalist-leaning organization of the factory committee.
So how have these various currents dealt with the problem of organizational unity?
Let’s start with the Anarchists. In my opinion the Anarchists have traditionally been poor organizers vis-à-vis the Leninists. Their laudable commitment to non-hierarchical forms ensures democracy and minimizes the chances of organizational splintering (as the organizations are decentralized to begin with). But their nearly religious devotion to their ideology has, on many occasions, prevented them from working in coalition with other socialists and has limited their organizational ability to make critical decisions on how to expend resources in a manner which affects the entire movement.
The notable exception to my admittedly broad generalization of Anarchists (and I will continue to make such broad generalizations of all currents, so feel free to note the exceptions when I miss them) are the Anarchosyndicalists. I believe that the revolutionary union was Anarchism’s answer to the Marxist revolutionary party as a vehicle for socialist revolution.
Early anarchosyndicalists were able to build effective mass organizations by accepting that some very limited hierarchy (through popularly elected committees, officers, and other representatives that were beholden to the general membership) was necessary for effective class struggle. In the case of the early IWW and later the CNT, they were also able to work in coalitions (although in the latter case, many Anarchists and Troskyists would argue that this was precisely the cause of the CNT’s downfall, but more on that later). In any case, with the rise of Leninism, anarchosyndicalism eventually moved to the background of the revolutionary socialist movement, with the short-lived exception of the Spanish Revolution.
Let’s now move onto the Leninists. Lenin’s major contribution was the idea of the vanguard party—that only a tightly-disciplined and centralized organization that worked within the mass organizations could keep those organizations moving in a revolutionary direction despite state repression and internal disagreements as to the nature of socialist reform or revolution within the mass organizations.
In terms of seizing state power, the strategy was very effective. So effective that the Fascists and Nazis modeled themselves organizationally on the Bolsheviks. Even the current organizational eminence grise of the Republican Party and modern American conservative movement, Grover Norquist, cites Lenin as an important influence.
As to the effectiveness of actually creating socialism, I would say the Leninist model was an utter failure, but that’s for another post.
But it seems the strategy of the vanguard party only works in singular countries during revolutionary conditions and does not function well in the absence of an authoritative leader.
After the death of Trotsky, the Trotskyist movement was plagued with crippling organizational splinters. Same goes with the Maoist movement after their revered leader bit the dust.
The Moscow-aligned parties met with some success in capturing state power in the Third World mostly in the context of anti-colonial/neocolonial struggle, but this is surely due to the resources being pumped to them by the USSR. Without such a superpower benefactor, I doubt any of those movements would have been successful, and may have succumbed to the same fracturing of the Maoists and Trotskyists.
But no Leninist movement has been able to sustain itself as an international movement without eventually succumbing to organizational fracturing. The only exception are those parties which were directly financed by Moscow. In any case, not one of them has built socialism and most nations where they were successful remained authoritarian states at best or became totalitarian states at worst.
And after the fall of the Soviet Union, most of these organizations transformed themselves into Reform Communists, if they had not already. Leninism, as a viable ideological system and movement has had its place in the sun and I don’t think it’s coming back in any big way.
As to the Social Democrats, well the major organizations have, for the most part, degenerated into capitalist parties. Their desire to work in coalition with non-socialist elements and their failure to advocate for the complete and immediate expropriation of the employer class was ultimately their downfall as the capitalists eventually co-opted them entirely, and disposed of their socialist platforms. Labour, SPD and the like no longer make any pretense of seeking a socialist society. The smaller parties are not doing much and are operating within an ideology that has largely been discredited by revolutionaries and reformers alike. Much the same can be said of the Reform Communists, though they keep up appearances of seeking a socialist end stage to society.
The “Other Revolutionary Marxist” categories largely includes organizations or movements which are dead for all practical purposes.
It is the very broad category of “Other Socialists” from which is likely to emerge the next big, international social progress movement in my opinion. But that ideological movement has not yet coalesced. Perhaps the seeds of it are being planted in Latin America right now, but perhaps not. Only time will tell.
So, back to the original question—
When that next big movement comes, how are we to avoid the mistakes of the past? How are we to maintain enough unity on the left to overthrow the current system but maintain a cohesive and clear program for structural change? How do we disagree without organizational fractures and counterproductive infighting? How do we know when it will be appropriate to work in coalition and when it will be counterproductive (like the CNT’s entry into the Popular Front)?
Big questions, no easy answers. But I thought I’d start a discussion on it all the same.
Though I don’t have any suggestions for the “big” answers, I have a suggestion on how we may start to improve dialogue between the various currents (though it may be unrealistic on my part).
First off, we need to recognize that in this stage in history no socialist ideology can decisively lay claim to being “effective”. It’s clear that all of the historical currents have had their strengths, their weaknesses, and none have yet created socialism. Secondly, I think we should recognize that we could ALL be wrong and the movement towards socialist society may take place in a manner none of us anticipated.
Finally, we should drop the tired, pejorative clichés we hurl at each other. Calling a fellow socialist “bourgeois”, “capitalist”, “revisionist”, “reformist” or “counterrevolutionary” does nothing to add to intelligent discourse. Quite the opposite, it focuses the discussion on accusations of ideological deviationism, defense from those accusations, and it eventually shuts off dialogue/intelligent debate and devolves into personal attacks.
We need to recognize that if someone claims to be an advocate for socialism, they probably are, regardless of our disagreements about how to get there or what the end stage is gonna look like. The exception would be when the "socialist" label is a mask for fascism. But if someone advocates for the abolition of class society, we need to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if we think their ideas are pure garbage. Down the line, when the fall of capitalism is imminent, unless one there is one singular movement leading the struggle, the various currents of socialism may indeed become mortal enemies as they struggle to fill the vaccum. But until that day comes, we need to act as allies at least in the loosest sense of the term, even if we are pursuing different paths.
Infighting should be kept to a minimum simply because it more often then not distracts from organization and movement building, and gives the capitalists and reactionaries more room to gang up on us. If we don't learn to get a handle on it, when revolutionary conditions arise, we're gonna see the extreme right take advantage while we are fractured and fighting each other, just as they did in Germany and Spain.
I think the first step is learning how to disagree and debate without polemics. Yeah, I know, that’s a big thing to expect, but then again, so is socialist revolution.