Re: AUT: a rejuvenated communist

[Bill Bartlett <billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris Wright wrote:

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


Sorry. I meant what is Marxist-humanism about?


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


We'll start out short though. ;-)


>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.

I wouldn't want to get into an argument about personalities, I'm not
well enough grounded in  the writings of all these individuals. And
one would need a further knowledge and understanding of the
historical context they were each writing in. A worthy field of
study, but beyond me I'm afraid. I'm more interested in evaluating of
the bottom line analysis and strategy.


>
>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.


If I understand you correctly you are referring to a peceived lack of
materialist analysis? A fault not restricted to anarchists, or shared
by all anarchists, so not a flaw particular to anarchist philosophy


>
>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...


Can't hurt to take precautions. If *I* flame you, there is no need to
take it personally though. At worst you will only be "collateral
damage" to some particular idea I take offense to. ;-)
>
>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.)

[...]


Few anarchists would see getting rid of the state without ending
capitalism as the answer.  Overthrowing the state is seen as somehow
a means to ending alienation. Looked at closely that sort of thinking
is seriously flawed.

The real difficulty I perceive is the fundamental aversion of
anarchists to electoral politics and political activity in general.
It is part of the anti-state philosophy. Of course the political
state would be redundant in class-less society, but it seems a
mistake either to think that this means destroying the state is
enough to create a class-less society, or even that the state
politics in capitalist society is not a useful area in which to
agitate for social revolution.

What the latter ignores is that state politics, electoral politics in
particular, is the main arena for debate in democratic capitalist
societies. This is where political ideas are openly debated and
considered. More importantly, this is where ideas for social progress
are put to the test of public opinion. By shunning this, anarchists
effectively show contempt for the will of the people. An attitude
which is almost vanguardist, because it suggests that anarchists are
not prepared to be accountable to the will of the majority.

Anarchists believe that electoral politics is a barren field for the
revolutionary, that "direct action" is the only area that serves any
purpose. This view is often expressed but as I demonstrated a few
days ago on this list it is a view that is unable to survive even a
cursory analysis.

This anti-political sentiment not only deprives the anarchist of a
useful tool of agitation, the ballot-box, but leaves them open to the
charge of being mere plotters, intent on trying to force their
solution on society without regard to the views of the majority of
the working class. It leaves them relying solely on force to bring
about revolution. It is the realisation of these uncomfortable facts
that finally convinced me, after many years, that I wasn't a true
anarchist.


>  >
>>  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.

One is a very small micro-group indeed. Tell me about it. Even then
you can't always get consensus. ;-)

>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.


That's OK, I prefer small chunks at a time.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas


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