Wayne Price vs. Michael Albert: on reformism, revolution, and voting Democrat

[GPDP]

http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/1834

Summary: Wayne Price, an anarchist of NEFAC-US, accuses Michael Albert of parecon fame of being a reformist. Albert rebuts his statements, and defines what reformism and revolution mean to him, all the while affirming his committment to revolution (his definition of it, at least). The subject of voting for the lesser of two evils also comes up.

I bring up this debate because I believe Albert touches on some points that I would like to see addressed, namely on what exactly constitutes our position on the seeking of reform, and what it means to stage a revolution.

Price's position on these issues appears quite typical of the usual anarchist stance. We should fight for reform as part of the class struggle, but ultimately a revolution will be needed to destroy the state and any remaining reactionary elements, which, in his view, will take the form of a militaristic standoff. Albert, however, believes that while a revolution would indeed start off violent, the focus should be first and foremost on building the foundations for the alternative institutions of tomorrow (through the pushing of non-reformist reforms), and that once a large mass of people are organized and committed to put their vision of a participatory and self-managing society, the army and the police would eventually refuse to repress at worst, and join the side of the working class at best.

Albert's definition of revolution, then, lies squarely upon the concept of changing society entirely. He argues, then, that a revolution does not have to look like, say, the Russian Revolution. It does not have to be some huge military conflict, in which the working class takes to the barricades, AK-47s in hand, against the oppressive forces of the state. Indeed, he argues that such a revolution would be foolish in this day and age. But he does not believe that just because he does not conform to Price's vision of the future revolution it makes him a reformist.

I would like to see some thoughts on this, if you please.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I think Albert has a hyper fantasyland view of revolution. He seems to think we can organize the majority of the military AND the police. Thus the revolution will somehow utilize a minimum of violence. However I don't see much historical precedent for organizing the police. Seeing as police have become more militarized and more reactionary these days, I doubt we have much of a chance there. Albert also forgets that there will be right wing paramilitary forces the will exist outside of the military and police. Why does Albert think this way? Well probably becuase he is a scion of privilege, and has a multi million dollar fortune.

[GPDP]

Those were my thoughts exactly. Well, not quite, because I hadn't taken into account the strong possibility of right-wing paramilitaries and militias- private defense agencies like Blackwater come to mind here, as do the more reactionary elements of the working class (think the conservative gun nuts of the South).

Still, does this position necessarily discredit him as a revolutionary? I wouldn't go that far.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

No but he's not one to discuss matters of practice and organizing with. The man was a student organizer with SDS. Since then he hasn't struggled for shit

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Just because he hasn't "struggled" doesn't mean his take should be thrown out. His French socialism notwithstanding, he also shares Sergei Eisenstein's MISPERCEPTION of the very "Kautskyan" Russian revolution. The idea of revolution is this (to correct Marx): the working class is to take power by legal means where possible, and by extra-legal means when necessary. Whether such means are peaceful or violent depends on the actions of the bourgeoisie.


the focus should be first and foremost on building the foundations for the alternative institutions of tomorrow (through the pushing of non-reformist reforms), and that once a large mass of people are organized and committed to put their vision of a participatory and self-managing society

To a huge extent this is correct!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Below is an article by Robin Hahnel (Albert said in 2006 that the two of them have become estranged):



http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6588

Fighting For Reforms Without Becoming Reformist

What To Avoid

We need look no further than to the history of twentieth century social democracy to see how fighting for reforms can make a movement reformist. Social democrats began the twentieth century determined to replace capitalism with socialism -- which they understood to be a system of equitable cooperation based on democratic planning by workers, consumers, and citizens. Long before the century was over social democratic parties and movements throughout the world had renounced the necessity of replacing private enterprise and markets with fundamentally different economic institutions, and pledged themselves only to pursue reforms geared toward making a system based on competition and greed which they accepted as inevitable more humane. As a result social democrats were doomed to grappled with two dilemmas: (1) What to do when leaving the system intact makes it impossible to further promote economic justice and democracy, much less environmental sustainability. (2) What to do when further reforms destabilize a system one has agreed to accept while the system constantly threatens to undermine hard won gains. Social democrats struggled unsuccessfully with these dilemmas, all too often abandoning important components of economic justice and democracy and denouncing political tendencies to their left whose programs they considered politically or economically destabilizing.

We need look no further than to the history of twentieth century libertarian socialism to see how failing to embrace reform struggles can isolate a movement and make it irrelevant. The principle failure of libertarian socialists during the twentieth century was their inability to understand the necessity and importance of reform organizing. When it turned out that anti-capitalist uprisings were few and far between, and libertarian socialists proved incapable of sustaining the few that did occur early in the twentieth century, their reticence to throw themselves into reform campaigns, and ineptness when they did, doomed libertarian socialists to more than a half century of decline after their devastating defeat during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939. What too many libertarian socialists failed to realize was that any transition to a democratic and equitable economy has no choice but to pass through reform campaigns, organizations, and institutions however tainted and corrupting they may be. The new left tried to exorcise the dilemma that reform work is necessary but corrupting with the concept of non-reformist reforms. According to this theory the solution to the dilemma was for activists to work on non-reformist reforms, i.e. reforms that improve people's lives while undermining the material, social, or ideological underpinnings of the capitalist system. There is nothing wrong with the notion of winning reforms while undermining capitalism. As a matter of fact, that is a concise description of pecisely what we must be about! What was misleading was the notion that there are particular reforms that are like silver bullets and accomplish this because of something special about the nature of those reforms themselves.

The Myth of the Non-Reformist Reform

There is no such thing as a non-reformist reform. Social democrats and libertarian socialists did not err because they somehow failed to find and campaign for this miraculous kind of reform. Nor would new leftists prove successful where others had failed before them because new leftists found a special kind of reform different from those social democrats championed and libertarian socialists shied away from. Some reforms improve peoples lives more, and some less. Some reforms are easier to win, and some are harder to win. Some reforms are easier to defend, and some are less so. And of course, different reforms benefit different groups of people. Those are ways reforms, themselves, differ. On the other hand, there are also crucial differences in how reforms are fought for. Reforms can be fought for by reformers preaching the virtues of capitalism. Or reforms can be fought for by anti-capitalists pointing out that only by replacing capitalism will it be possible to fully achieve what reformers want. Reforms can be fought for while leaving institutions of repression intact. Or a reform struggle can at least weaken repressive institutions, if not destroy them. Reforms can be fought for by hierarchical organizations that reinforce authoritarian, racist, and sexist dynamics and thereby weaken the overall movement for progressive change. Or reforms can be fought for by democratic organizations that uproot counter productive patterns of behavior and empower people to become masters and mistresses of their fates. Reforms can be fought for in ways that leave no new organizations or institutions in their aftermath. Or reforms can be fought for in ways that create new organizations and institutions that fortify progressive forces in the next battle. Reforms can be fought for through alliances that obstruct possibilities for further gains. Or the alliances forged to win a reform can establish the basis for winning more reforms. Reforms can be fought for in ways that provide tempting possibilities for participants, and particularly leaders, to take unfair personal advantage of group success. Or they can be fought for in ways that minimize the likelihood of corrupting influences. Finally, reform organizing can be the entire program of organizations and movements. Or, recognizing that reform organizing within capitalism is prone to weaken the personal and political resolve of participants to pursue a full system of equitable cooperation, reform work can be combined with other kinds of activities, programs, and institutions that rejuvenate the battle weary and prevent burn out and sell out.

In sum, any reform can be fought for in ways that diminish the chances of further gains and limit progressive change in other areas, or fought for in ways that make further progress more likely and facilitate other progressive changes as well. But if reforms are successful they will make capitalism less harmful to some extent. There is no way around this, and even if there were such a thing as a non-reformist reform, it would not change this fact. However, the fact that every reform success makes capitalism less harmful does not mean successful reforms necessarily prolong the life of capitalism -- although it might, and this is something anti-capitalists must simply learn to accept. But if winning a reform further empowers the reformers, and whets their appetite for more democracy, more economic justice, and more environmental protection than capitalism can provide, it can hasten the fall of capitalism.

In any case, it turns out we are a more cautious and social species than twentieth century libertarian socialists realized. And it turns out that capitalism is far more resilient than libertarian socialists expected it to be. More than a half century of libertarian socialist failures belie the myth that it is possible for social revolutionaries committed to democracy to eschew reform work without becoming socially isolated. Avoidance of participation in reform work is simply not a viable option and only guarantees defeat for any who opt out. Moreover, no miraculous non-reformist reform is going to come riding to our rescue. Though many twentieth century libertarian socialists failed to realize it, their only hope was to throw themselves wholeheartedly into reform struggles while searching for ways to minimize the corrupting pressures that inevitably are brought to bear on them as a result.