AUT: Re: Re: Marxism & councilism

["odessa steps" <italia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Accepting that the revolution can only be made by the self-activity of the
working class, the anarchist revolutionary organisation still has a number
of tasks to perform. It must act as a propaganda grouping, untiringly
putting over the message that the working class must destroy capitalism and
establish a libertarian communist society. It must also show how this can be
done by giving examples of self-activity. It must search out the history of
past struggles and share the lessons to be learned with the rest of the
class as part of the development of class consciousness. When important
developments occur, the revolutionary organisation must spread the news
through its links with organisations in other countries.  But the
organisation is not just a propaganda group: above all it must actively work
in all  grassroots organisations of the working class such as rank and file
groups, tenants associations, squatters and unemployed groups as well as
women's, black and gay groups. It must try to link unionised and
non-unionised workers, building a movement at the base.


Reclaiming ourselves can only occur in areas outside the main focus of
capitalist control: our neighbourhoods, campaigns of resistance or protest,
autonomous zones and initiatives.  This is where we reconnect with the
'unemployed', the 'underclass', the socially excluded.  Since work does not
depend on employment and freedom is about what we do not how much money we
earn, there should be no boundaries between revolutionaries and those laying
the foundations for a self-managed society.  The need to control our lives,
to use our skills in a 'good' cause, to choose who we transact and interact
with, to achieve a balance between giving and receiving, to entrust our
lives to others, all are central to us as human beings and all can be
experienced through work only on a personal or local level, never within a
mass society.  The revolution may not be led by an awakened proletariat
breaking out of the factory prison but by a radicalised citizenry emptying t
he factories.  Does this mean that people in work can play no part in the
revolution ?  It is likely mass, alienated labour will not lead the
revolution. There will be opportunity for strikes and sabotage any time
there is a rising tide of rebellion but it is more likely that the worker
will join direct actions and movements outside her/his workplace.  The
revolution will re-connect workers and non-workers as people, not classes,
it will be made and led by affinity groups sharing common values about work,
the environment and social relations, rather than trades unions. These
groups may be free associations built on mutual respect rather than
associations created by economic necessity.


The revolutionary organisation supports struggles to improve life for the
communities we live and work in before the revolution, such as single-issue
and campaigns for reform.  But although these may bring about important
limited gains for the working class in the here and now, they are at best
temporary and reversible.  Many reforms do not and cannot make a revolution.
Therefore the revolutionary organisation works inside single-issue groups to
help radicalise them and to argue for a break with reformism and
authoritarian revolutionaries.  It respects the independence and autonomy of
working class movements and (unlike others) does not try to subordinate
them.  This does not mean that it does not seek to spread its ideas in these
movements. The organisation works to bring about mass participation inside
all these groups and the class as a whole, working for self-activity and
self organisation in every struggle and aspect of life. These ought to be
working class organisations as cross-class movements hide class differences
and imply that the working class have shared interests with the ruling
class.  Full emancipation cannot come about without the destruction of
capitalism. Only by building such organisations in the course of struggle
can the working class hope  to achieve liberation.


To make revolution more likely, working class communities must be united in
both thought and action. The creation of self-managing and autonomous groups
within society will make the revolution more likely as we see what life
might be like outside state control and the iron logic of profit and
competition.  The Left has spent many years and spilt much blood over the
question of whether it is possible for the working class to bring about a
revolutionary change in life without leaders, discipline and organisation.
Some anarchists (including the Anarchist Federation) believe that the
working class can and does spontaneously become radicalised, developing new
forms of resistance to oppression.  But the concept of working class
spontaneity has been distorted and misunderstood for so long.  It is wrong
to ignore history or to study it and to draw the false conclusions (as even
some anarchists do) that the working class springs into revolutionary
activity with no memory of or connection with previous struggles and no
previous agitation by revolutionary minorities.  On the contrary, the work
of revolutionaries over many years to clarify and co-ordinate struggles in
the working class greatly helps the revolutionary process.  Working class
spontaneity is the ability of that class to take direct action on its own
behalf and to develop new forms of struggle and organisation.  This happens
in every great revolutionary upsurge where working people often form
committees and councils independent of "vanguards".  The activities of the
working class have taken place regardless of and sometimes against the
urgings of the revolutionary elite.  The experiences of working class life
constantly lead to ideas and actions which question the established order.
This leads to "working class consciousness" but different sections of the
working class may reach different degrees of consciousness. At the same
time, the ruling class seeks to keep the working class divided, undermining
solidarity based on culture and common experience through its control of the
media and education and by perpetuating racism and sexism. The working class
is never wholly atomised nor solid and united, conscious of itself and its
power. The anarchist revolutionary organisation knows this; it's problem is
that the only possible working class revolution is a mass revolution to
smash the apparatus of the ruling class (the police, courts, bureacracy etc)
and the class itself, a revolution of many not a few.


The anarchist organisation must always be part of the working class. This
creates a tension.  While on the one hand it's consciousness is more
developed ("in advance"), it's ability to develop and extend its influence
in the class depends on not being too far in advance.  If it is then it will
fall into the trap of ignoring or rejecting the new forms of struggle and
organisation.  There are dangers in this contradiction and the revolutionary
anarchist organisation needs to develop ways of acting based on an awareness
of the contradiction. We must always be ready to learn from the class and
constantly revise our tactics with the unfolding situation.  The
revolutionary organisation is transformed as the working class is
transformed in the revolutionary process. Theory and practice must be rooted
in concrete conditions.


Agents and apologists of the ruling class will resist us.  Neighbourhood
groups will clash with local councils, workers with trade unionists, artists
with the cultural elites who control funding and so on.  Activity which is
unofficial, unsanctioned and independently organised is more likely to build
the self-confidence and skills of people than initiatives that are
bureacratized or led by reformists from the start. Campaigns that set out
forthright demands and are fuelled by people's anger avoid the danger of
partial, negotiated solutions.  Movements that can count on a high degree of
solidarity or which strike a chord among many communities will exert far
more pressure than isolated struggles.


The revolutionary organisation itself must have mass participation and
decision-making. It must also be organised federally as only federalism can
hinder bureaucratic degeneration and encourages active participation by all
members in the organisation.  The anarchist organisation realises that the
social revolution cannot be won without struggle at the point of production
and the seizure of the means of production. However, it should not relegate
struggles in other areas of life to a secondary role. All these struggles
within capitalism are closely intertwined. The questioning of one facet of
capitalism can lead to a total rejection of the system. The militants of the
revolutionary organisation involved in these groups must pinpoint the ways
the class system causes and/or perpetuates the problems different sections
of society are confronting.  It is vitally important that a 'libertarian
front' of these movements and groups is built. Thus, revolutionary work
consists in part of linking each area of struggle, bringing out all latent
anti-capitalist and libertarian tendencies.  Revolutionary anarchists seek
to unite all those whose struggle is global and act as a driving force of
this unity, constantly drawing in radicalised elements and building a mass
movement. The revolutionary organisation is a means of communication and a
weapon to be used by the working class, not how anarchists take over mass
movements.


In a non-revolutionary period people will generally accept conservative
ideas and values.  The organisation tries to keep revolutionary ideas alive.
Adopting one role, organisations are often surpised by the speed at which
revolutionary activity develops and the audacity and imagination of the
revolutionary masses.  It must be aware of this danger and adopt a flexible
strategy.  If the revolution progresses, counter-revolutionary forces will
press for statist or piecemeal solutions; the revolutionary organisation has
to defend the advanced ideas of the masses.  With its clearer understanding
of hierarchical society, the concept  of self organised society and
authoritarianism, the revolutionary organisation will need to struggle
against 'revolutionary parties' based on authoritarian notions of power.  It
will be a struggle at the grass roots, a war of ideas and tactics against
authority and bureacracy, using revolutionary anarchist theory and practice

----- Original Message -----
From: "cwright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 4:14 PM
Subject: AUT: Re: Marxism & councilism


> Just a thought.
>
> Shouldn't we really differentiate between a politics of organization which
> assumes that the working class needs a party to lead it ("to the correct
> consciousness") and which therefore also tend to be very pedagogical,
versus
> organization which sees itself as an instrument of the class, not a
> leadership?  The latter can also disseminate information and ideas without
> laying claim to being a leadership or to 'consciousness raising', and yet
> provide information and ideas that workers in struggle (whether in the
> workplace, the schools or the home) find helpful, inciteful, which
broadens
> their perspective and sense of belonging to a struggle, gives a picture of
a
> possible future, etc.
>
> Also, the former would almost always be a command-type organization,
> replicating capitalist social forms internally and externally, while the
> latter type of organization might be able to be and act more
> prefiguratively, or at least in a manner which clashes with capitalist
> social relations.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "neil" <74742.1651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "autopsy" <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Neil C." <74742.1651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:33 AM
> Subject: AUT: Marxism & councilism
>
>
> > cdes--
> >
> > Reply to   the other Neil, Neil F of R. & B. Notes (Can) jouranl;
> >
> > I don't think the term 'councilist' is intrinsically  a put-down, for
> > example,
> > the very pro -councilist P. Rachleff in his well researched  book ,
> > ' Marxism and Council communism'  uses the terms 'councilist' and
> >  'council communist' interchangably  many dozens of times.
> >
> > Small coummunist groups can carry out effective  prop-agit work  even
when
> > struggles are in a demoralizing  ebb, etc, when sporadic mass actions do
> > take place. . This is
> >  not 'Watchtower' type religious stuff either of  just promoting  just a
"
> > true" "Platform ' ,
> > In fact this Magic Platform method  was one of the things we critcized
the
> > ICC, Bordigism , and to a
> > lesser degree,  the IBRP  and others for .
> >
> > But  intervention  does take some research and study -- like recently
here
> > in LA when one of
> > our flyers exposed the $$$$ the liberals and conservatives got  from the
> > Energy companies to 'deregulate' Energy  prices,  speeding up the
> corporate
> > price fixings &
> >  looting of the Calif, state .budget surplus to the point where Calif.
has
> > a $23
> >  Billions deficit  now with ensuing  massive cuts in  health services
> > /schools and big layoffs
> > are going  on.
> > For a change, we could hear  a number of  protestors  at a big rally
> > here discussing this from our leaflet  directly recently . May not count
> > fro much , but its better than
> > doing nothing and just waiting for the apocalyptic big crash to come!
> >
> > Besides its gives to microcosmic forms of collective pol. work and  some
> > masses
> > remember it was 'those reds' , the 'ultra lefts' ,  who took time to
put
> > this stuff out.
> > Neil F. does admit  that this kind of work can have a bit of positive
> > effect ..
> >
> > Neil F however states " I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but I
> > think we can agree
> > there isn't a communist ideology".............
> > NO! There really is, and can come in varied types too, just as does
> > liberal, fascist,   conservative,
> > monarchist, republican, religious,  even syndicalist,  unionist,  and
dare
> > i say anarchist ideology!!
> > differing classes , castes, etc, all evolve forms of ideology . Ideology
> > can
> > be progresssive or reactionary  as far as differnet/opposing  class
> > interests are concerned.
> >
> > But no differing here that in the end , the masses themselves have to be
> > able to sort all this
> > out as their own struggles progress. .
> >
> > I would agree with Neil F. though that Cajo Brendels material  is very
> much
> > worth
> > looking at . He did a great pamphelt for exLondon Solidarity  a few
> > decades ago
> > on the  history of state-cap  and bourgeois nature of Maoism from its
> > earliest days...
> >
> > Neil C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



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