M Dupont's "What's it All About, Comrade"
Jun 19 2006 00:40
Monsieur Dupont wrote:
The CNT was a reformist industrial union organisation which, like other unions of the early part of the century across Europe, used ‘revolutionary’ rhetoric. The Spanish revolutionary period of the 1920’s and 1930’s proved itself to be against the CNT. In 1936 the CNT tried to hold back a revolutionary impetus that, rather than being the product of CNT propaganda and organisation, was in fact the result of the living and working conditions of the Spanish proletariat and the disastrous way that the governments had been handling events for many years.
http://libcom.org/library/node/1754
As far as concerns the CNT "hold[ing] back" the revolution, Dupont don't clarify whether they're referring to their entering government (an act which I think can be universally understood to be a betrayal of the revolution) or prior to that (during which most anarchists/libcomists believe them to be revolutionary).
Apart from that however, prior to 1936, of course the CNT were reformist in that they fought for concrete, material gains for workers under capital. This, for me, ties into John's (now infamous) criticisms of the IWW in that even if you have an entirely revolutionary membership, the battles you fight will not be revolutionary, at least at first. This is bourne out by experience of each and every one of us. We aren't plotting a new society here, we're desperately trying to unionise our workplaces etc etc. Which begs the question: at what point does an organisation shift from making quantitative demands (eg better pay, shorter hours) to qualitative (revolution!)?
The traditionally cited model of creating a socialised infrastructure within capital which gradually renders the state redundant seems somewhat naive if you consider the fact that such an activity will not go unnoticed by capital, who will subsequently try and destroy it (and probably succeed in doing so). It's arguments like these that make me wonder whether Dupont is right, and whether you do need the state's authority to be undermined by capital's own crises in order for class struggle to reach a revolutionary status.
Or is this the kinda crude determinism Cantdo was being accused of on here not so long back? Be kind, please...I read Thought but often don't feel confident enough to contribute. I have more to say but I'm tired so this'll be it for now.
Jun 19 2006 07:20
#2
OliverTwister wrote:
basically that quote convinced me that Dupont (or at least one of them) is a liar. there's nothing more i need to read from that.
That sounds familiar, oh yes:
OliverTwister wrote:
Then Siedman is either ignorant or a liar - or else you're using a bad analogy.
So, anybody who criticizes the CNT (beyond the standard criticisms) is a liar. The most frightening thing there, Oliver is the assertion that:
OliverTwister wrote:
there's nothing more i need to read from that.
I haven't read either of these pieces, but I am not so closed minded as to just ignore things that don't agree with my ideas. In the piece where you say he is a liar, I don't actually see any facts that he could be lying about. Yes, there are a couple of broad sweeping generalizations, but I would consider them to be analysis rather than statements of fact.
Maybe you should try to read the Siedman book. It might be interesting.
If you want to reply on this point post it on: http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10250
as I think that it derails this thread.
Alan I will come back to your points later.
Devrim
Jun 19 2006 16:39
#3
I just read the Dupont piece. It was pretty good, i thought a lot of the ideas were valuable, i still don't like that quote though, but i will retract my assertion of "lying" and offer apologies to Messr Dupont.
Jun 21 2006 12:29
#4
Pity, we lost a couple of in depth posts from Devrim, including one that I was getting round to replying to.
basically that quote convinced me that Dupont (or at least one of them) is a liar. there's nothing more i need to read from that.
regarding "reformism", one of the things i like best about left-communist thought is that a lot of them insist that there is no seperation between the workers immediate interest (living, enjoying life) and historic interest (communism). the difference between 'reformist' activity and 'revolutionary' activity isn't one of scope, it's one of class. 'reformism' is a new, more efficient or better way of operating capital. the working class organizing and taking action against capital, even if it does not produce a revolution, is not reformist (or at least the lack of a revolution would not make it reformist - certain demands might). this seems to be pretty closely tied to the critique of leftism.
of course those ideas are all present in anarchist theory but there are still quite a few advanced anarchists who talk about 'revolutionary' reforms or 'reforms pending revolution...'