Re: AUT: a rejuvenated communist

["Chris Wright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Chris Wright wrote:
>
> >[...]  and that work brought me into deeper contact with Raya
> >Dunayevskaya's Marxist-Humanists
>
> What's that all about then?

What is Marxist-humanism about?  Or what is my point?

> What do you see as anarchism's weaknesses? I have my own ideas and
> would be interested to compare notes.

This could get long.  I suppose I have a number of disagreements with what I
have read so far, but in some ways, the disagreements have to be taken on a
person-by-person basis.  I don;t want to lump every anarchist together any
more than I would every Marxist.  Bakunin has different weaknesses from
Malatesta from Guerin from Bookchin.

For example, I find myself largely in agreement with Makhno on the Platform
debate with Malatesta, who I find far too individualistic.  Malatesta (and
Bakunin for that matter) also sounds like pre-Hegel Enlightenment thought
given an anti-capitalist spin.  He relies too much on "human nature as force
for cooperation", rather than a grounded historical analysis of what makes
capitalism different.  I do not have any sense from Malatesta that anarchism
could not have come about 500 years ago.

I suppose I could make one general point (which of course will not apply to
every anarchist).  Wait, let me put on my flame retardent underoos...

I think the focus on the state puts the cart before the horse.  The state is
not the source of the problem, IMO.  The alienation of human beings
resulting from the exploitation of labor, and the resulting class formation,
gives rise to the state.  Getting rid of the state without ending alienated
human social relations will just gaurantee the re-appearance of what we got
rid of (or worse, judging from the Russian Revolution.)  Beyond that, we
would have to discuss each person in turn.  I could not compare Bakunin to
Goldman in any easy way, for example, since Emma Goldman was deeply
influenced by Nietszche (as was Alexander Berkman).  And here I am simply
talking the ideas of anarchists in the mostly anarcho-communist tradition.
Anarcho-syndicalism presents a whole different set of problems (again, like
Rudolph Rocker.)
>
> Not as well-worn as you might imagine, but I'm always looking for an
> interesting argument so I'd be happy to oblige. ;-)

I don't have a clear idea.  I know more of what i don't want than what I do
want.  I suppose, like many others, I am trying to figure out what being a
revolutionary means now that I don't have the Leninist answer ready made
(build the party!)  Or rather, I am trying to figure out what direction to
go in terms of organization.  I can't really say I relish the thought of
another micro-group, but the solo thing gets old.  I suppose that's why I am
here, looking for other people with similar politics.

Sorry if that was very general, I am not up to a longer, more thoughtful
piece right now.  In which case, I am going to be quiet and go to bed.

Chris Wright

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and
despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every
abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the
everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for
revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a
ival.  -- Frederick Douglass



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