"If there was an anarchist revolution in Russia..."
Nov 5 2009 15:11
#62
ernie wrote:
sorry for delay in replying to your detailed post, but wage labour has got in the way and still is. I cannot give a detailed response at the moment
no problem, take your time. i do have a tendency to long posts which is exacerbated by unemployment 
i'll try to have a read of your pamphlet at some point, but it won't be soon as i'm pretty busy with practical stuff and have put my reading on hold for the time being. in terms of my tradition, what i'm arguing here is very close to Rudolph Rocker's (and with regard to Russia, GP Maximov's) positions - i.e. anarcho-syndicalism.
in summary, Rocker traces advocacy of councils back to the libertarian side of the first international, who published a resolution saying as much at Basel in 1869. essentially this was the split between 'direct action' and 'political action' between anarchists/syndicalists and marxists/social democrats - although of course the later development of council/left communism, putting the primacy back on direct action by workers themselves (as opposed to political action by the party on their behalf) blurred this line. of course i don't 'take sides' in the first international in any crude way, on this question the libertarians were right, but Marx still made many valuable contributions.
i terms of my anaysis of what happened in Spain, it's based on reading the history and addressing the differences between revolutionary and anarcho- syndicalism armed with Chapter 4 of Debord's 'Society of the Spectacle' - 'Proletariat as subject and as representation'. It's my contention that much like its social democratic/bolshevik counterparts, revolutionary syndicaists saw the class as something to be recruited en mass and represented, whereas anarcho-syndicalists rejected that logic in favour of self-organisation (i.e. 'proletariat as subject' instead of 'party as subject' or 'union as subject'). as debord says of bolshevism, "the representation of the working class radically opposes itself to the working class" - in my opinion the same can be said of the French CGT or the CNT in the May Days of '37.
Nov 5 2009 23:44
#63
Not too familiar or at all familiar with the work of Debord but I think the idea that Marxism, or Bolshevism sees or saw itself as recruiting the proletariat on mass in order to represent it is where there is probably a fundamental disagreement. This is well summed up in the Resolution on Political Action adopted by the Ist International at the Hague Congress, which saw the formation of a proletarian political party as the expression of the proletariat's self-activity. This is how we see this question, which is why we see ourselves as coming from the Tradition of the Left in the 2nd International, the 3rd International and the Left Communists within this. For us these are all expressions of the proletariats efforts to organise itself politically.
In the case of the 2nd International and the various socialist parties, these expressed the determination of the proletariat to make its political weight and will felt. The central problem was that parts of these parties became accustomed to being an opposition within capitalism and fought against those who wanted to maintain the revolutionary nature of the party.
We will not agree on this, but it is very useful to see that the difference is on this fundamental understanding i.e. political organisation as expression of the proletariat's self-organisation or not. It bring it back to the good old question of political struggle or not. A very important and fundamental question.
Nov 6 2009 19:45
#64
ernie wrote:
Not too familiar or at all familiar with the work of Debord but I think the idea that Marxism, or Bolshevism sees or saw itself as recruiting the proletariat on mass in order to represent it is where there is probably a fundamental disagreement. This is well summed up in the Resolution on Political Action adopted by the Ist International at the Hague Congress, which saw the formation of a proletarian political party as the expression of the proletariat's self-activity. This is how we see this question, which is why we see ourselves as coming from the Tradition of the Left in the 2nd International, the 3rd International and the Left Communists within this. For us these are all expressions of the proletariats efforts to organise itself politically.
yes but the question is what was that party supposed to do? take state power on behalf of the proletariat. i know the ICC rejects this, but it's still a minority position amongst Marxists/Bolsheviks today and i don't think was even considered in the 19th century (the post-1905 council/left communist writings are probably the first to move in this direction from the Marxist tradition).
ernie wrote:
In the case of the 2nd International and the various socialist parties, these expressed the determination of the proletariat to make its political weight and will felt. The central problem was that parts of these parties became accustomed to being an opposition within capitalism and fought against those who wanted to maintain the revolutionary nature of the party.
We will not agree on this, but it is very useful to see that the difference is on this fundamental understanding i.e. political organisation as expression of the proletariat's self-organisation or not. It bring it back to the good old question of political struggle or not. A very important and fundamental question.
i think this is a point of difference. while i reject the strict economism/apoliticism of some forms of syndicalism and industrial unionism, i think the way for the working class to make political demands is the same way we make economic ones - direct action. a party is not required.
to be fair to councilists (and perhaps the ICC, since you like Luxemburg), they also see a unity of the political and economic in the class struggle, but only at its peaks in the mass strike. by contrast for anarcho-syndicalists the day-to-day class struggle, waged by direct action is always political, since behind every bread and butter economic demand is also the question of power: who controls the workplace, who controls our lives? consequently i think revolutionary organisation needs to reflect this, industrial and community organisation with a clear revolutionary perspective, rather than a political party.
Nov 10 2009 11:54
#65
First of all JK, I am very sorry to hear you are unemployed. and hope you find work soon.
You are correct to say that it was not until after 1905 that the concept of the party taking power was questioned, it after 1917 to be precise. This is one of the most important and bitterly learnt lessons of the proletarian revolution in Russia. However, as you say our conception of the role of the party is not widely accepted within the Communist Left.
I do not think the conception in the 19th century was of the party taking power on behalf of the working class but of the working class take power through its party. There certainly those who believed that the Party was there to take power or to act on behalf of the proletariat, but that was not the conception that formed the basis of the Marxist understanding of the party: which as has already by pointed out was clearly laid out in the Resolution on Political Activity
Quote:
In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination of the propertied classes resulting from it;Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;
That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes;
That the combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists —
The Conference recalls to the members of the International:
That in the militant state of the working class, its economical movement and its political action are indissolubly united.
Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action
This is not a million miles away from what you say
Quote:
to be fair to councilists (and perhaps the ICC, since you like Luxemburg), they also see a unity of the political and economic in the class struggle, but only at its peaks in the mass strike. by contrast for anarcho-syndicalists the day-to-day class struggle, waged by direct action is always political, since behind every bread and butter economic demand is also the question of power: who controls the workplace, who controls our lives? consequently i think revolutionary organisation needs to reflect this, industrial and community organisation with a clear revolutionary perspective, rather than a political party.
Here I think it is a question of what you mean by political. We would agree with most of what you say. Behind every strike loons the revolution and the economic struggle cannot be separate from the political. That the central need for the class in its struggle is to defend its autonomy. We see this as being done at two levels;
- the self-organisation of the struggles
- through the development of political organisations.
This does not mean we see the economic and political struggle as being two separate sphere, rather they are part of the same process of the development of class consciousness. The political aspect of the struggle clearly involves the workplace and daily problems but also the wider question of social position of the class, its revolutionary role, its theoretical armory and historical understanding.
I think that the question of what is the political struggle is one that may be needs to be clarified.
For a more detailed analysis of this question I would recommend our pamphlet Class Consciousness and Communist Organisation http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/classconc. Could you recommend a book or pamphlet that you feel best summaries your position on this question.
Nov 14 2009 16:31
#66
I didn't want to interrupt this in the middle of the discussion, but now it seems to be dead, I am surprised that Jef Costello didn't take issue with the title.
Devrim
Nov 14 2009 18:11
#67
888 wrote:
Except that they have repeatedly done so throughout history, given the correct conditions
Good night Glasgow soviet.
Nov 14 2009 22:12
#68
I think you forgot that they have intergalactic nuclear missions. You will never win.
Nov 18 2009 00:05
#69
Jason Cortez wrote:
I think you forgot that they have intergalactic nuclear missions. You will never win.
Cortez is wrong! We're closing in for the kill on Dundee now sub-space commandante weelers.
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
JK
sorry for delay in replying to your detailed post, but wage labour has got in the way and still is. I cannot give a detailed response at the moment but want to take up two points:
-
Yes Marx talked about taking power and how this was to be done was not clear until after the commune, but following the commune it was clear that Marx did not have have Jacobin conception of the proletarian revolution. He saw the revolution as the mobilisation of the whole class. Yes Marx does defend the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, because it will impose its political will over the deposed bourgeoisie. As the only revolutionary class it has to defend its autonomy after the revolution and not allow itself to become submerged into the other classes. I think we will probably not agree on this, but I would suggest that you read our pamphlet on the Period of Transition where our understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the period of transition is developed much more clearly and deeply than I can.
2
It is not clear why the formation of the workers councils into the means of the proletariat defending its autonomy represents the dictatorship over the proletariat. If the proletariat is consciously impose itself own objectives as the dominant class in a revolutionary situation. The proletariat is still a dispossessed class in the fact that it does not have its own property rights to impose and is consciously seeking to bring about a society where it disappears, but that does not mean it does not have political power or that it should not strike to gain that power in order to construct communist project.
May be we are both coming at this from slightly different angles, but it is very interesting to see what the difference is between a Marxist/Left communist analysis of the revolutionary process and that developed by yourself, I am not sure what political tradition you see yourself as coming from. I do not know a lot about Rocker. Anyway hopefully it will help to clarify things.
Sorry this is rather hurried but I have to get off now.