Re: AUT: Anarchism & Marxism

["ROWAN WILSON" <ajxrw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Sergio, Jamal, Anton et al,

A few comments (which, reading it again, seems only to repeat
Anton's bullet points):

NEGRI and ANARCHISM
Toni has not, as far as I know, written directly about anarchism.
However, the term frequently comes up in his writings and he
equates it with spontaneism, the belief that the revolution just
happens, struggles just explode as if from nowhere, rather than as
the ongoing processes of struggle taking new turns. Negri rejected
this approach (as someone has already mentioned) in favour of an
analysis of the balance of forces, the composition of the working
class and capital.
In terms of theory, Negri would also have a huge problem with the
humanism that is so prevalent in anarchist theory, i.e., the idea
that the human subject has a homogeneous essence that is the
subject of history, the cause which generates history as an effect.
Theoretically, this is inconsistent as history would then not move.
Also, this humanist subject is a leninism of its own - if you don't
share this essence then you are excluded from the party/anarchist
organisation.

MARXISM and ANARCHISM
One of the ways in which I think the marxist tradition, in particular
in its autonomist strain, succeeds over the anarchist tradition (as a
theory) is in its attempt to grapple with the problem of authority (I
mean tradition here as theoretical legacy). There is a sense in
which marxists have recognised that revolutions have taken an
authoritarian turn is through problems with their theory and
organisation. In a sense, marxists have taken responsibility for
their tradition's failure - WE got it wrong, how do we alter
OURSELVES to get beyond it. With anarchists one feels that the
responsibility for failure is always someone elses - 'ah, those nasty
bolsheviks messed it up for us pure anarchist souls'. (This ties in
with what I was saying above about humanism.) Consequently
anarchists never theorise the problems of their own authority but
wish it away. (As Anton highlighted, this is why autonomists talk of
constituent power, the development of democratic power and
anarchists dispense with power, seeing it as purely repressive
rather than generative - again this ties in with the Focauldian
critique of humanism that Negri accepts). They are unable to see
how they can be just as leninist as the leninists.

Of course, this is a very linear history of marxism, but its just a
crude impression.

Cheers
Wil
PS Anton, I'd like to hear more on how you see autonomists
dealing with the ideology/truth problem.


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---