I don’t mean to call anyone out - I despise conflict, especially of the sectarian variety.
I wrote the following in response to someone’s assertion that all anarchism is, amounts solely to fighting in the streets, but it is a more general response to how I feel about the community in general - vis-a-vis Marxist-Leninists in particular. Since this comm. is fairly quiet, I figured I’d put it here as I spent a lot of time writing it and it would be a shame if no one saw it. 😑
I am becoming more and more convinced that the ML crowds that are the loudest proponents of ‘read history’ and ‘read theory’ do absolutely neither.
Anarchism is one of the prestige forms of socialism - it was half of the First International, and, just like Marxism, was disseminated and adopted throughout the world during the 19th and 20th centuries.
- Even during Marx’s time, one of the most informative experiences of the era was that of the Paris Commune - heavily contributed to by anarchists.
- The Russian revolution was not undertaken solely by a cadre of intellectual vanguardists - it was facilitated by the formation of the proletariat and peasantry into trade unions, factory committees and worker’s soviets - at this time, Lenin et al weren’t even in the country due to exile.
- Even Lenin on his deathbed spoke of ‘witnessing the resurrection of the tsarist bureaucracy to which the Bolsheviks had only given a Soviet veneer’; after the civil war rejecting the popular demand for socialism via worker-control and disbanding organisations like parties, committees and soviets - not to mention utilising force when necessary such as at Kronstadt. This is not a blunt stab at the Bolsheviks - it is important to note the Marxist Contradiction: That the Bolshevik state was established to achieve socialism and to represent the interests of the proletariat - yet, at the opportunistic post-Civil War moment to do so, they declined, instead favouring the opposite.
- Mao himself read anarchist theory and was inspired by it - beyond being a passing interest as a young man, it likely fed the basis of his later departures from Marxist-Leninism and criticisms of state bureaucracy.
- In Korea, anarchists established the Korean People’s Association - an autonomous confederation of 2 million people, operating on a mutual aid based economy.
- It would be folly to discount entirely the efforts of the Spanish anarchists in establishing ‘actually existing socialism’ in Catalonia and Andalusia - money was abolished, productivity increased, and thousands took up arms in horizontal armies to fight the fascists. Putting aside issues of ideological supremacy, these are real, material impacts that in some cases have lasting effects - even today the municipality of Marinaleda maintains a system of mutual aid, collective ownership and autonomy.
- In Cuba, anarchists lent their support to the revolution wholeheartedly - joining the guerilla groups fighting Batista directly.
- Edit: Of course, how could I forget the Zapatistas? They currently control a sizeable territory in Mexico, and have been directly addressing the needs of their largely rural and underprivileged citizens for over 25 years.
etc.
In many of these cases, anarchists have repeatedly facilitated revolution, and even established instances of real, tangible socialism. That they did not survive suppression and encirclement is not proof of their lack of capacity for success - if such a thing was true, the Soviet Union would never have been established (on the basis of historical revolutionary suppression and exile) nor should there be Marxist-Leninists left now that it has been dismantled.
The assertion that anarchist movements are prone to corruption and co-option by reactionaries is also flawed - the same applies to Marxist-Leninist parties too. There is no shortage of ML parties in various countries extolling reactionary views today, and the conditions that led to the dismantling of the USSR can be seen as exactly this phenomenon - the undermining of public trust in the party by propaganda and the infiltration of the party itself by opportunists and yes-men for the purpose of usurping it.
How can Marxist-Leninists say with confidence that their method is the only scientific application of Marxism; lambasting others for their perceived vulnerabilities to Western capital; when not even their prestige test-case itself was immune? How can we be expected to fall in line with the logic “The Marxist-Leninist state was undermined and dismantled. The solution is Marxist-Leninism.”
Finally, why is it that calls for ‘Left Unity’ apply solely to Marxist-Leninism - that we should overlook our differences in their favour in the interest of the bigger picture, yet you will find nothing in kind from them?
I have spent years carrying water for ML ideologies - for the USSR, for China, etc. - against my personal beliefs and better judgment in the interest of internationalism and anti-imperialism. The least I expect, is to be treated like a communistic equal, fighting in the same struggle.
Instead, our communities are filled with Marxist-Leninists quotebombing dissenters with Lenin and stamping on anarchists at every possible opportunity - only occasionally moderating themselves with a token “I have many anarchist friends, but…” or “I support left unity, but…”
Put aside your wretched egos for once in your lives. Consider the fundamentals of our theory and praxis - that material conditions around the world and throughout history are not uniform. There may indeed be cases where Marxist-Leninism is the most effective - I claim that in earnest.
Will you be able to acknowledge the possibility of cases where anarchism is the most viable? Especially when anarchism spans such a range of approaches and theories - from syndicalism to mutualism to synthesism.
You need to be aware, that for many people, the barrier to the adoption of Marxist-Leninism is not simply the influence of Western propaganda, or the the lack of ‘reading theory’ - it is our diametric opposition to hierarchy in any form. That does not preclude our contributions to your causes - it means that they are done voluntarily.
The truest demonstration of Left Unity for me, will be when I don’t feel like an outsider, as a communist within the communist community.
:left-unity-2:
LONG LONG POST (I RECOMMEND COMRADES WHO COME FROM IMPERIALIST NEO-COLONIAL CENTERS OF POWER TO READ- also don’t let my labor go to waste) :
Completely agree with the this post. Also its not very difficult to see in which ways MLM has tried to intergrate elements of various leftist traditions (the entire concept of mass line tries to get rid of this opposition between vanguard party and the people overall).
I think we’d all be better off if we understood that elements of the various traditions all need to be used. Generally most people I’ve met who are actually in the field are willing to concede different things. My anarchists friends have admitted that intergrating and using social organisms or institutional frameworks (when it comes topics such as immigration, public education, mental health, health care) need to be used and taken advantage of. While I (and I think any serious ML) will admit that anarchist praxis overall, when organised outside the state to destabalize it, is very useful atm in several parts of the world.
Still I think the issue lies elsewhere, and if I’m honest I think this debate (even if spread worldwide) is most present in western eurocentric circles. Best example is you using the Zapatistas and claiming they are anarchists while they themselves have answered they aren’t (I’ll put the link below, personally not my cup of tea but still recommend all comrades whether anarchists or ML/MLM to read it). The real issue, and I mean this only with love, is that this debate usually ends up manifesting itself in some kind of form of ideological neo-colonialism (albeit ‘progressive’). The real issue is that people are too stuck up in their ways and see themselves as being the manifestation of past political successes and representatives of current ones, which is bs, since most people aren’t doing shit. Same with Rojava, MLs or anarchists won’t hesitate to jump and say ‘its more this cus party … its more this cus Bookchin’ which is ridiculous.
If we look at what have been the greatest successes in starting the path towards communist societies they have been outside the imperialist centers. And because of it have reclaimed their own specific regional identities in some shape or form and actualised communist politics while drawing inspiration from many international traditions/theories. African socialists began describing themselves as socialists precisely because westerners were trying to co-op their movements. Pinning different politically successfull groups against each other because of their ideologies might be some of the most reactionary shit possible, even more so when people are themselves not engaging in any revolutionary struggle.
That’s my personal beef with many modern day anarchists, since its an ideology that claims universality and yet doesn’t concretely theorise specificity. BUT that was also what was reproached by many communists across the globe to the european MLs during the 20th century (even if indeed cold war ect. ect.).
Once we get rid of this Western lense of a universal MLs approach or a universal anarchist approach (which still have some western imperialist tendencies since they proceed from percieving starting from the ‘centers’ and moving to the ‘outsides’) we can move forward. If you look at the EZLN, you look at Nepal, you look at Rojava, Burkina Faso, Maoist China, ect… they each successfully express themselves as they should in the territories they inhabit (same could be said about different anarchist projects and movements or others such as the Black Panthers). And if successfull in putting/inacting revolutionary politics then who gives a fuck what ‘team’ they belong to, fight along with them.
Its not suprising considering what the chapo demographic is, still, it remains problematic that there’s generally a lack of reflection on this topic even if theoretically peeps are down w anti-imperialism and decolonialism. Seems to me people are really undermining what it means to be engaged in revolutionary politics whatever expression it may take by immediately denouncing it as ‘not the right way’. Some MLs need to stop pretending that the most they can do politically is argue for a vanguard party and some anarchists need to stop projecting and essencialising the state apparatus as something ‘bad’ (in cases such as Bolivia it is directly related to giving power to indigenous people and therefore decolonial).
MLs should stop bashing anarchist comrades for some of the great work they’re doing even if they aren’t in a political party. Anarchists should stop seeing isolated local politics as sufficient to develop general public goods (education, health care ect…). EDIT: Completely agree w OP in that we should all remember we are communists before bickering, as to at the very least recognise we all want a classless, moneyless, stateless society.
PS: I’ll prob repost some variation of this onto main, since i’ve generally seen some reductionist anti-imperialist, neo-colonialist, decolonialist takes and I think this is a discussion worth having.
Much love to you all
EDIT2: replaced ‘come from’ for ‘live’, still not sufficient since depending on the person reading in question this may or may not be more or less relevant EDIT3: grammar
https://iaf-fai.org/2019/05/05/a-zapatista-response-to-the-ezln-is-not-anarchist/
