RE: AUT: Re: vanguardism, moralism, and anarchism

["Chris Hurl" <munkah@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harald,

Thanks for clarifying.  I also find this discussion to be a productive one.

To summarize:  From my standpoint, it seems like you are arguing for the necessity of many vanguards.  These vanguards are not necessarily promoting an explicit program or platform (but they could if the conditions called for it.  ie. in fighting liberal reformists and social democrats).  Rather more importantly these vanguards must develop 'organically'-  first off with regard to the production process.  I am reminded of what Luxemburg writes in 'The Mass Strike', where she argues that it is the unorganized miners and transport workers that will form the vanguard of any mass strike in Germany due to the fact that their struggles have not been contained and fragmented into the political (Social Democratic Party) and the economic (trade unions).  Or rather these struggles do not fall back into organizationally constrained identities.  You argue that the most developed and the least developed sectors are particular hot beds that could serve as vanguards.  Yet this also seems to be tempered by the particular traditions of activism in these sectors (ie. it takes three generations).

When you speak of anarcho-syndicalism, you say that you are arguing for a strategic orientation that remains relatively flexible, but seems to suggest attempting to somehow building and expand workers struggles.  The strategies assumed must largely come out of the particular context in which workers are struggling.

Does this sound right?

Now I have some questions and comments on this viewpoint.  But first a concrete example:

Many workers and activists over here are attempting to cope with the General Strike movement that nearly exploded last April.  As nearly 50,000 Hospital Employees went on strike over here and almost galvanized a general strike that would include all public sector and many private sector workers.  Now, the HEU served well as a vanguard for many reasons.  First, it has maintained a long tradition of radicalism over the years.  Second, by virtue of its placement in the production process, within the public sector hospitals, which have been viciously attacked by the current provincial government.  As usual, the union leadership struck a shitty last minute deal, literally the night before all this was set to go down.  Of course, this has led to a moment of critical reflection for thousands of workers and activists across BC.  What went wrong?

Over here, a lot of people argued that there was a lack of organization in some way.  This necessary 'organization' varies depending on who you talk to.  Some argued for the need for independent rank and file workers committees.  Others sought to broaden the movement to include other community struggles around poverty, education, etc.  Some argued for the need for a more permanent and even explicitly anti-capitalist rank-and-file organization.  Finally, some argued that the problem was not organization at all.  Rather, the problem was too much organization.  Such organization could be easily coopted and manipulated by the leadership.

Now, this seems like a common problem in the labour movement.  history repeats itself.  This same situation was handled in the same way in this province 20 years ago.  So my question to you is what do you think is necessary strategically in moving from this quagmire?  What keeps this from happening over and over again?  How can people get over that hump?  And why do they frequently fail?  How can such struggles be transformed to broader social struggles?

Further, I remain a little confused about your distinction between morals and moralism in this context.  How can an analysis grounded in morals rather than moralism be infused in social struggle?  What role can groups and activists advocating a specific analysis play in such struggles?

well, that about exhausts my brain for the night.

g'night,

--chris







>From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>

>Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>Subject: AUT: Re: vanguardism, moralism, and anarchism

>Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:40:10 +0100

>

>

>----- Original Message -----

>From: "Chris Hurl" <munkah@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 7:00 AM

>Subject: AUT: vanguardism, moralism, and anarchism

>

>

>Chris H, thanks for a thoughtful response. When

>talking about 'vanguards' I was *not* referring to

>political groups or parties. I do not consider my-

>self a 'platformist' but first and foremost an

>anarcho-communist -- which to me is has to do with

>certain set of values and an end and not with any

>particular strategy. Secondly I consider msyelf an

>anarcho-syndicalist, which implies a certain strategical

>perspective, and as such something I am also more

>open to adjust according to circumstances than what

>is the case of the former.  The ends and underlying

>values remain the same, but the road leading in that

>direction will take its twists and turns.

>

>I am not an anti-platformist, but I believe it is a

>strategy with its clear limitations. There are differnt

>version of it, but the one I in theory can symphatise

>most with seem to have roots back to one part of

>Bakunin's thinking, the belief in the need for an orgainzation

>with the sole function to work against a counter.-

>revolution from within. My viewpoint on this, is that

>such an organization may or may not be needed, but

>that it can constitute itself in advance. F.A.I. in Spain

>initially thought of itself in such terms. Interstingly

>enough, in the beginning of the 30ies I think it was,

>( But I would have to check that up) there were strong

>complaints among some older FAIist in particular, that its

>members indentified more with CNT than FAI, and

>the initial idea that FAIist should not hold any position

>within the CNT was eroding. In all circumstances

>FAI proved itself no more immune against 'pragmatism'

>than CNT, rather to the contrary. The strongest

>bulwark against it, if not strong enough, seem rather

>to have been CNT base, even if this is aslo somwhat

>a simplification.

>

>As already indicated within a anti-authoritarian context,

>I have no belief in that any political group can function

>as a 'vanguard' in social struggles, which does not imply

>that such groups can have things to contrubute with

>along with most everybody else.  But I do have a belief in

>that for instance mexican-american workers in the U.S.

>might serve the function of a 'vanguard', as catalysator

>for other forces. And I do believe that hotel- and

>restaurant workers are in general better placed to do

>so than office workers are. I also in general believe that

>there need to be more than one 'vanguard' in this sense,

>to provide an ongoing dynamic, probably even to set it

>going, which is primarily what 'vanguards' are about.

>Transport workers will always be logistically important,

>but that is not enough. One reason for I mentioned

>mexican-american workers, if far from the only one, is

>that there, or so I believe, the community workplace

>connection is still relative strong.

>         The Leninist tradition, forgetting here for a moment

>everything else that was wrong with it, focused much on

>the factories, which was not so much wrong in itself, as mistaken

>for its onesidedness.  Unable to see, the importance as a

>complementary potential 'vangaurd',  as the I.W.W. and

>various (anarcho-)syndicalist movemnts did, the workers

>wandering here, there and everywhere. A blindness rooted

>in a quite unmaterilistic thought, if you ask me. Although

>perhaps not in the perspective of simply to conquering the

>state rather than bringing about a social revolution. So

>there certainly was a need for at least two 'vanguards'.

>A third, mostly, if not entirely neglected, would have been the predominatly

>female textile industry, operarting both

>from factories and from home within the framwork of a

>verlags-system, and thus also with a high potential of

>bridiging that gap. In England in the time of Marx, it was

>obviously also a big mistake to completely overlook servants

>as a potential particular kind of 'vanguard', although very

>weak in many respects, and for obvious reasons, their

>numbers were in fact greater than those Marx defined

>as the true working class. When thinking of 'vanguards' in

>this particular sense, one should always think in plural, and

>also ahead: who are the potential vanguards next turn

>around, so as to keep the movement going.

>         It is both a question of gettiing a movement going, and

>maintaining a dynamic, and if we are to generalise

>many 'non-political' workers often tend to see these things

>much clearer than 'leftist' do.

>         Time for a digression. As I see it, it is often a problem

>with people with a background in marxism (in particular when

>with no links to early marxist breaks with leninism) that they

>tend at times to turn to some kind of ultraanarchism. The

>same goes with people with no such background but who still measure

>everything with was wrong with the Komintern

>tradition, too foten falling into to the trap in my opionon of simple

>taking what they think as the opposite position.

>         So, back on the track, when words such as strategy

>is mentioned, there is a strong tendency to to think in Leninist

>terms, and thus reject it on those terms. One immediately

>iamagine some self-defined poltical elite sitting and pulling

>the string, or at least doing most of the thinking. Not only

>would this be counter-productive in anti-authoritarian

>terms, but also in strategical ones. To be effective,

>strategial thought need not only be widespread, but be

>concentrated foremost within the struggles themselves

>'in the midst of the masses', the capacity for thinking concretly

>in such terms are there more often than not also better

>deveoped, even from the start. 'In the midst' translates

>increasingly into here, there and everywhere. Which does

>not mean that intellectuals -- here simply defined as

>people who read more on such things than most  -

>have nothing to contribute with. Of course they may. But

>contribute is here also exactly the right word.

>         An important reason for why I consider myself an

>anarcho-syndicalist is that I believe the thought and

>experiences of many contaim far greater potentials than

>that of a select few, not at least in such a large world as

>ours. It is hard to be everywhere. And all those small little

>things are often the most important. An anyway it does

>not matter much of some group or person have all the right

>ideas, if that was at all possible, as a social revoltion is the

>work of the vast majority, and you have to think as go along,

>and meet new challenges at almost every step, not by some

>predefined manual. For that the complexity  of a world in

>movement is far too great.

>         I might here also repeat, as I think I've done before,

>a saying often heard among spanish anarchists, it takes

>three generations to make revolution. (The exact number

>3 is of course not the essence here.) This also has much

>have much with what is said above.

>

>In a somewhat wider sense than above, a 'vanguard' might also

>be the weakest link, not in the sense as the weakest link of

>capital/ism, but the potentially weakest link among the workers.

>As a general rule, the strongest and weakest links are the

>first to consider. How to turn the potential weakest link

>into a strenght?  The CNT failed here, as regards the

>petty-bourgeoisie, that too a large extent became the

>recruiting ground for both fascists and stalinists. And even

>more desasterous and a far more incredible mistake (a

>better word might be outright stupidity) is the degree to

>which the Bolsheviks overlooked the importance of the

>peasants, the vast majority of the population.

>

>I could go on, but hopefully this gave a somewhat better

>idea of how I look at these things. But pleas come back

>with more questiosn and critical comments. I do not believe

>I have all the answers. But I think it of some importance

>that such things are discussed.

>

>Harald

>

>

>

> > Harald,

> >

> > First, it seems like you are saying first that a certain form of analysis

>is more adequate than others in understanding and addressing social issues.

>Further, this form of analysis refuses to fall back into a grounding on

>identities.  As you mentioned, simply being against racism, rather than

>understanding the social dynamics that create racism.

> >

> > Second, as a result of this, you seem to argue that vanguards are not only

>unavoidable but in some circumstances desirable.  Against Hardt and Negri's

>quite mechanical view of the multitude, it seems that some social movements

>"move" further than others and this is often based on the adoption of an

>analysis that refuses to fall back on identities, refusing to fall back on a

>"moralistic" grounding.  Rather the adoption of morals as a basis for action

>seems to suggest that there can never be an absolute foundation for

>analysis.  Rather, any analysis is necessarily grounded in the context in

>which it emerges.

> >

> > Your standpoint reminds of the anarcho-communist position, specifically

>the idea of platformism.  This is to say, that there is a necessity for an

>explicit anti-capitalist anti-authoritarian "vanguard" of sorts in social

>struggle.  This organization is founded on theoretical and tactical unity

>and collective responsibility.  There is a necessity to develop a common

>analysis that rejects the moralistic grounding of social struggle.  This

>grounds action which is organized in a directly democratic and accountable

>fashion.  Further, this organization does not lead through compulsory

>membership or coercion, but rather through moral suasion.  Of course, such a

>position might be considered to be in itself a little stiff, abstracted from

>its specific histirical context.

> >

> > Do you identify at all with an anarcho-communist standpoint?

> >

> > It seems like such a standpoint ultimately depends on the power of reason,

>the power of solid analysis that can be generally agreed and acted upon by

>others.  Here, there seems to be a gap between theory and practice.  So my

>question simply stated is how can social movements resist imploding into

>such identities?  How can such "analysis" be practiced? If vanguards are

>necessary how can they be formed in a manner that does not fundamentally

>alienate people and does not in itself become fetishized into a rigid

>stagnant oppressive beast?

> >

> >

> > --chris

> >

> >

> >

> > >From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>

> >

> > >Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> >

> > >To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> >

> > >Subject: Re: Fambly Values was - RE: AUT: America Implodes

> >

> > >Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:44:20 +0100

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >----- Original Message -----

> >

> > >From: ".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> >

> > >To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> >

> > >Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 6:26 AM

> >

> > >Subject: RE: Fambly Values was - RE: AUT: America Implodes

> >

> > >

> >

> > >Angela, your reply certainly made it clear that we

> >

> > >are dealing here with some misunderstandings. Which might

> >

> > >very well be my fault. But to writ it large, to me

> >

> > >National-Socialism (Nazism) 'must in certain sense

> >

> > >also be understood as anti-capitalist response'. And

> >

> > >there is nothing idiosyncratic in such perspective, and

> >

> > >the usage of 'anti-capitalism' on that sense. It has a

> >

> > >long history, in particular in relation to rightwing-

> >

> > >populism. And I do think it important, as such movements

> >

> > >as a rule are contradictory. This  being an essential

> >

> > >part of their overall irrationality, and what makes

> >

> > >them at all possible to grow beyond the level of

> >

> > >small sects. (To make sure not to be the cause of another

>misunderstanding,

> >

> > >I am not suggesting the Bush

> >

> > >voters are Nazis. )

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >Further, contrary to what you understood me as, "the kinds

> >

> > >of politics which are expressed in "family values" is very

> >

> > >much a form of particularism in my book. Which does not

> >

> > >in any way rule out -- very far from it --  that the term

> >

> > >'familily values', whether in the U.S. Mid-West, or in the

> >

> > >inner cites of dominantly 'non-white' neighbourhoods, will

> >

> > >also be assocated with far more communist values; be also

> >

> > >a reaction against capitalist atomism,  and bring forth thoughts of

> >

> > >sons or daughters lost to drug addiction, and to fathers

> >

> > >who run away from all responsibilities.

> >

> > >In other words, it is very much possible to have more than

> >

> > >one thought in one head at the same time. And it is absolutly

> >

> > >critical to any social revolutionary thought, or a reform

> >

> > >movement for that, to ble able to see such contradictions, and

> >

> > >also be able to discern the true within the false. If not, some

> >

> > >kind of fascoid turn comes far more likely.

> >

> > >         One problem with so much of 'the left' is that it too

> >

> > >often tend to cultivate an unability to see through more than

> >

> > >one eye, and thus to some extent be caught within the same

> >

> > >moralistic web that the advocates of 'family values'. The Good

> >

> > >against the Evil in good old evangelical fashion.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >And Angela, I am perfetly aware that  you are not interested in

> >

> > >supporting struggles for recognition or representation (including

> >

> > >'Gay Marriage' campaigns, 'Gays in the Military,' etc) -- .

> >

> > >I am in no way suggesting that the above fits you. I does not.

> >

> > >That was why I was somewhat surprised by your reaction.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >If I wrote that  your response was knee-jerk, it was because

> >

> > >you in this instance seemed unable to to distinguish between

> >

> > >descriptive and prescriptive.  Perhaps this was in part

> >

> > >my fault, not articualting myself clearly enough. But just

> >

> > >because Negri & Hardt do not seem to find the distinction

> >

> > >between descriptive and prescriptive too important, or at

> >

> > >least tends to blur it, this does not automatically translate

> >

> > >into that every one else follows that course.

> >

> > >

> >

> > ><< I'm sure you can make an argument that  "family values"

> >

> > >includes many aspects which are not reducible to homophobia;

> >

> > >but it would be bad faith to argue that on this occassion

> >

> > >the prompt for your post was not a discussion about the

> >

> > >Marriage Act and the paranoiac 'defense' (assuming

> >

> > >that it needs defending) of heteronormativity. >>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >I just have some very great doubts that it can be reduced to

> >

> > >homophobia *alone*, even in this particular context.  That

> >

> > >seems to me a bit too simplistic and too much of a crude

> >

> > >positivisism. The homophobia part is very much there, that

> >

> > >is self-evident. But there is something to be said for an under-

> >

> > >standing that takes into account mutually reinforcing forces.

> >

> > >And the interesting part here is not the die-heart

> >

> > >homophobes, and hardly ever is.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >The problems I have with the line, "the paradigmatic elevation of

> >

> > >'white, straight men' (or the 'cognitariat' or the 'industrial

> >

> > >working class' or whomever) to the pantheon of a representational

>politics,"

> >

> > >is amongst others:

> >

> > >         It is far too often merely a automised reductionist phrase,

> >

> > >that may or may not be relevant to what is discussed. It tends to

> >

> > >turn into a stupefying moralism, where any effort to understand

> >

> > >social dynamics is made into an absolutized taboo. It is in fact

> >

> > >very possible to be very much opposed to that a child with

> >

> > >freckles gets mobbed by her or his schoolmates, without believing

> >

> > >that putting and end to such behaviour will threaten the rule

> >

> > >of capitalism. Many struggles simply have a value in themselves.

> >

> > >Apart from that, most of those who talk about class reductionism

> >

> > >tend to have a extremly reductionst perspective on what

> >

> > >class relations implies, most of the time arguing with some

> >

> > >further reduced Komintern notion of class. While even if we

> >

> > >were to confine the question  to the micro-level of taking part

> >

> > >in a workplace struggle, almost every aspect of life is involved.

> >

> > >That is because these questions are interconnected, due

> >

> > >again to that people's lifes are so. And within a struggle all

> >

> > >these different aspects tends surface, all the more so as

> >

> > >a workplace may also be defined as space where people are

> >

> > >more or less randomly thrown together.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >There is every reason to believe that there does in fact

> >

> > >exist an 'hiearchical order' in how social dynamics tend

> >

> > >to unfold. And that in such a sense 'vanguards' are

> >

> > >absolutly unavoidable. The real problem occurs when 'the

> >

> > >vanguards' (note the plural) gets frozen in time (as in

> >

> > >once a 'vanguard' always 'vanguard' ) and thus also

> >

> > >arrests the social dynamics. But it is still true most of

> >

> > >the times, and to keep to the immediate sphere of wage-

> >

> > >wor,k that it is easier to organize all restaurants and

> >

> > >hotels in a town, if you manage to build a base in some

> >

> > >of the largest ones first, or within the chains, even if

> >

> > >the actually worksites making up the chain are very

> >

> > >much dispersed, and not very large . There are very

> >

> > >common-sense logistical, empirical as well as psycolgical

> >

> > >reasons for this. Which does not mean that this always,

> >

> > >without exception will be so. Far less that you should

> >

> > >not start the struggle where you are. Nor does it in any

> >

> > >way imply that some of the smaller worksites which are

> >

> > >not any part of a chain, combined in the next turn can

> >

> > >beome the ' vanguard'. I could easily venture further

> >

> > >into this. But I leave it here, while adding, that I do not

> >

> > >for a moment believe that one should social-dynamic

> >

> > >strategical terms avoid distinguishing between library-

> >

> > >workers and transport workers.  Or for that, not

> >

> > >distinguish between transport workers. As long as one does

> >

> > >not loose the perspective, that the end is all along to

> >

> > >include and bring out the force of all, and that the combined

> >

> > >force is what ultimately counts. Something the story of the

> >

> > >Liverpool dockers illustrate well. And they were very much

> >

> > >aware of it too. That I here chose to focus on the work-

> >

> > >place level, it is not in any way due to that my perspective

> >

> > >does not go beyond that. It just seemed easier here and

> >

> > >now. And then I am in fact still convined that there exist

> >

> > >a 'hierarchical' order here, in the terms as just desribed,

> >

> > >without going into the complexity of that

> >

> > >wider question here and now.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >Further, 99,9 per cent of those conducting endless 'discourses'

> >

> > >against 'representatnation' in langauge, have little problem with

> >

> > >representation in politics. Then they sudddenly become the

> >

> > >pragmatists, if they give the question athought at all.  I know this

> >

> > >is not so in your case. But that seems to be more (one of) the

> >

> > >(few) excpetion(s) that proves the rule.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >I'll end now. Better to come back to try to to clear up any

> >

> > >new misunderstandings the above may have caused

> >

> > >

> >

> > >Harald

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---

> > This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

> >

> > Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

> >

> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---

> > text/html (html body -- converted)

> > ---

> >

> >

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

> >

> >

>

>

>

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





--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html (html body -- converted)
---


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