modern anarchism

[Jack Hill <mlbooks@xxxxxxx>]

--=====================_839394302==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


--=====================_839394302==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="LRGRN.TXT"

For the information of participants in this list and as one
contribution to the Marxist critique of anarchism, I am posting
the following article which first appeared in our journal, _The
Chicago Workers' Voice Theoretical Journal_ issue no. 9, Jan.
1996.
===========================================================

Review of "Anarchism: Left, Right and Green"
by Sarah, Chicago Workers' Voice

     The following article is a review of the book "Anarchism:
Left, Right and Green" by Ulricke Heifer. The book was originally
published under the title "Die Narren der Freiheit: Anarchisten
in den USA heute" in 1992. The book was translated and the author
revised it and updated some sections. Page numbers listed refer
to page numbers in the English edition of this book.
     The author divides anarchism into three types -  anarcho-
syndicalism, eco-anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism. She discusses
these three types as they exist in the United States. To do this,
she reviews the thinking and activities of anarchist activists
and theorists she considers to be "particularly typical" of the
three trends. I found her book very informative as far as
understanding the thinking and politics current among anarchist
activists.
     The author holds that there are three types of anarchism in
present day anarchist politics, she divides anarchism into two
main tendencies. She holds that these two tendencies have existed
since the inception of anarchism.
     Since its inception, anarchism has brought to mind the Roman
     god Janus whose two faces are turned in opposite directions:
     one of them, resembling the social-revolutionary forefathers
     Bakunin and Kropotkin, turns its eyes toward a stateless
     democratic socialism, collective self-administration, and
     mutual aid. The other, inheriting its features from Max
     Stirner, the philosopher of unlimited personal freedom,
     looks to the brutal chaos of the war of each against all,
     waged in the arena of the unfettered free market. ( p. 1)

          Her book focuses on the "differences between the traditional
two main tendencies of anarchism." (p.1)
     From what I can determine the author considers that anarcho-
syndicalism is "social-revolutionary." There are features of both
"social-revolutionary" and right-wing anarchism in eco-anarchism
and anarcho-capitalism is the right-wing face of anarchism
     The author thinks it is "anarcho-syndicalism in the
Bakuninist tradition we can learn from most today."  I disagree
with the author on her assessment of anarcho-syndicalism.
However, I think it is important to discuss what politics are
needed for a revolutionary movement. Her book contains much
useful information and analysis on present-day anarchism.
     In reading the book it seemed to me that despite her
declared sympathy for anarcho-syndicalism, the author had
difficulty defending many of its aspects and many of the aspects
of anarchism in general.
     To my mind there are several fundamental problems with
anarchist theory and programs including:
     1. Anarchism is not materialist. It does not base itself on
an analysis of where society, its economics and politics, are at
present. It does not consider what is possible based on the
current level of society. It does not judge what the class forces
and interests are. Thus, anarchism is mired in a romantic view of
how to change society. And this romantic view is frequently based
on an idea of going back to some sort of pre-industrial society
as a solution. This is a romantic, unrealistic view. Yes, we have
to fight so that industry and technology serve the interests of
the working class and oppressed and not the interests of profit.
But, short of major catastrophe, we are not going back to pre-
industrial society. Nor was pre-industrial society the idyllic
paradise various activists might like to think.
     2. Anarchism does not base itself on class struggle. It
frequently sees change coming about through the moral behavior of
individuals or groups of individuals. Thus, anarchism is
frequently connected to various forms of putchism. It is also
connected to schemes to change society through the lifestyle
changes of individuals or groups of people.
     3. Since anarchism is opposed to all authority, it cannot
answer the question of how a progressive or revolutionary
movement will enforce it policies.
     Thus, anarchism is not a theory which can guide
revolutionary activists.
     I think that where the author does criticize anarchism it is
precisely on these points.
     I will present here some of the analysis she gives on each
type of anarchism and the discuss some of what I think its
relevance is the the political movement.

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM

     The author states that "During the 1910's and 1920's leftist
anarchists developed 'anarcho-syndicalism,' combining the ideas
of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and early 20th-century syndicalism."(p.2)
     She gives a brief discussion of what she considers to be
Bakunin's views. Bakunin "began his career as a Panslavic
populist"  (p. 13) After 1864 he became "an anarchist and
internationalist." (p. 13)
     She states that "at the center of his teachings is the
concept of liberty." (p.13). He held that "a revolution must be
both social and cultural." (p.13) "Future society must anticipate
its structures in the given society." Bakunin got some of his
ideas from early socialists and labor organizations of his day.
"From the early socialist Pierre Proudhon he adopted the concepts
of federalism and of workers' association; from the French and
Swiss labor movements he took the idea of the revolutionary labor
union." (p.14)
     She explains what she thinks were some of the differences
between Bakunin and Proudhon:
     Whereas Proudhon envisioned his workers' cooperatives as
     being united through a kind of loyal competition, Bakunin
     incorporated syndicalism into workers' self-administration.
     ...The commune, which in Proudhon's system is envisioned as
     a largely autarkic entity, is in Bakunin's concept
     integrated into the larger society.(p.14)
          According to the author Bakunin supported "the right to
political and cultural autonomy for all regions and nations." And
he thought that "national and separatist independence movements
are positive forces only when they originate with the people and
not with a privileged class." (p.14)
     The author apparently agrees with these aspects of Bakunin's
writings. She does note some of what she considers to be his
weaknesses.
     He incorporated some aspects of Panslavist ideology into his
theory of anarchism. He thought that "the Slavic peasants
resemble the noble savage who, unperverted by bourgeois
civilization and in possession of infallible tribal instincts, is
the ideal subject of the revolution." (p.14)
     He was anti-Semitic.
     His anti-intelellectualism "has become a chronic problem for
many of his followers, who still agree that "for the preservation
of a people's liberty, strength, and passion, ignorance is
preferable to bourgeois civilization." (p. 15, from Mikhael
Bakunin "Statism and Anarchy" p. 27)
     "Putchism," "spontaneous-romantic vitalism" and a "recurrent
weakness for secret conspiratorial societies whose members become
the driving force of the revolution." are "other facets of his
problematic legacies." (p.15)
     Heider then goes on to discuss Kropotkin, whom she considers
to be the other historical predecessor to anarcho-syndicalism.
I think her description of Kropotkin's views is pretty damning.
     After Bakunin's death, social-revolutionary anarchism
     drifted away from the labor movement for a while, developing
     the utopia of "communist anarchism" which placed more
     emphasis on the commune and local autonomy than on unions.
     While Peter Kropotkin, the classic proponent of this
     doctrine, never lost touch with the labor movement, many of
     his fellow believers became elitist individualism, reclusive
     eccentrics, and visionary founders of anarchist colonies. In
     Germany the movement had, by the turn of the century, become
     almost completely apolitical and individualistic, picking up
     mystical, folk-romantic, even prefascist characteristics.
     (p.15)

     "Communist anarchism" is a composite of bourgeois-
     revolutionary, early socialist, liberalist, and social
     revolutionary elements. For Kropotkin, ....evolution is just
     as important as revolution: society..is moving towards
     communism of its own accord...Like the Russian Narodniks and
     Bakunin, he considered the mir, the commonly-owned pasture
     of the Russian peasants, the starting point for social
     change. Two other precursors of communism are the "voluntary
     contract," and the "voluntary agreement." Thus, trade and
     exchange associations independent of the state, the
     international postal association, the railroad association,
     scientific societies, and various other private initiatives
     anticipate free society. As does bourgeois tradition,
     Kropotkin see the Greek polis and the European Renaissance
     as the models of true democracy, and praises the honest
     merchant of the Middle Ages with his "mercantile ethos."
     Under the nostalgic glow of the utopian lamp, the guilds
     seem like social associations of mutual aid, and the free
     cities like oases of democracy in the desert of feudalism.
     Since Kropotkin's day, many an anarchist has fallen victim
     to nostalgia's siren song. ...Mixing agrarian romanticism
     and belief in technology, he presents his utopia as a
     paradisiacal farming culture devoid of toil and drudgery.
     Small artisans and small industry will be located in the
     villages, thus ending the division of labor. Large industry
     will be almost nonexistent. How the future society is to be
     organized is barely explained. Technology, good will, and
     reason seem to be sufficient guarantees for human
     cooperation. (p.17-18)

          I think that her description of Kropotkin's views clearly
show his views to be non-materialist. His views on how to change
society are not based on a materialist assessment of where
society is, what class forces exist, etc. He does not see the
class struggle as a way to move forward. Instead he wants to go
backward towards a non-industrial, romanticized agrarian society.
Unfortunately, these ideas have a lot of influence among today's
left-wing activists.

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM IN THE SPANISH REVOLUTION

     Heider then goes on to discuss some of the influence of
these two tendencies of anarcho-syndicalism in the Spanish
revolution.
     She states that "Spanish anarcho-syndicalism was the product
of a cross between peasant communalism (as derived from the
commune) and the urban syndicalist labor movement."
(p.24)"Bakunin's followers had agitated to turn the nostalgic
provincial and particularist consciousness of the mir into the
utopian ideology of village communism, whose declared goal was
the autarkic 'free commune.'"(p.24) "Syndicalism. on the other
hand, operating primarily in Catalonia, grew out of the
industrial proletariat's future-oriented consciousness of reality
and found expression in a well-organized union movement. The
theorists of Spanish anarchism reflected the traditional
contradictions of its basis, subscribing either to Kropotkin's
autonomous agricultural communalism or to Bakunin's proletarian
integrationist internationalism."(p.25)
     I am not clear why she describes Bakuninist anarchism as
advocating "proletarian integrationist internationalist" when she
has just said that his followers "declared goal was the autarkic
'free commune.'" Nevertheless, she clearly disagree with a
program adopted at the 1936 CNT (Confederacion Nacional de
Trabajo, the Spanish anarchist union) conference in Zaragosa.
According to her "representatives of both wings of the movement
presented their programs."   She gives a brief description of the
programs of Isaak Puente and Diego Abad Santillan put forward at
this conference.
     Isaak Puente "presented a concept for direct village
democracy." In discussing it she says that "his vision of
autonomy and autarky was even more extreme and backward-looking
than Kropotkin's. " (p.26) Santillan "presented the opposing
syndicalist view." She apparently has a lot of sympathy for
Santillan's particular program. She then goes on to say that
"revolutionary realism, however, could not win out over a
captivating arcadian vision. The CNT decided to adopt Puente's
utopian variant of anarcho-syndicalism. "
     She does not discuss whether this had any role in the defeat
of the Spanish revolution. However, she does discuss that in
Santillan's view "lack of organizational coordination, too few
weapons, and the communist betrayal were..the main causes of
defeat." And I would ask, might it be that the lack of
organizational coordination had something to do with the
prevailing anarchist predilection for autonomy and autarky.

CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM

     For contemporary American anarchists in the anarcho-
syndicalist tradition, Ms. Heider discussed the views of Sam
Dolgoff and Noam Chomsky whom she calls a "fellow traveller" of
anarcho-syndicalism.
     The author describes a number of Dolgoff's views and
activities. Dolgoff worked with the IWW and other anarcho-
syndicalist organizations. During the Spanish revolution, he was
one of the publishers of the United Libertarian Organizations
magazine Spanish Revolution. The author describes the United
Libertarian Organizations as " an anti-fascist league set up as
an alternative to the communist organizations." (p. 28)
     Dolgoff wrote extensively.  His works include " The American
Labor Movement" in which he critiques the politics of Samuel
Gompers, John L Lewis, Sidney Hillman and various policies of the
trade unions. He published "The Cuban Revolution" in which
various articles and documents criticizing Castro's regime were
published. He wrote critiques of Marx and Engels. He also
translated some of Bakunin's work into English and published it.
     The author notes some of Dolgoff's disagreements with other
anarchists.
     According to the author Dolgoff "never tires of distancing
himself from the advocates of 'ox cart anarchism,' who oppose
syndicalism and industrial production with 'simplistic notions'
of returning to the 'primitive social life of a by-gone age.'"
(p.27) Unlike some other anarchists Dolgoff "viewed World War II
as a necessary evil for destroying Nazi rule" (p.28) unlike many
anarchists who opposed participation in the war. He also
supported "the decision of the CNT to take part in the government
of Catalonia" during the Spanish revolution.
     The author then goes on to note what she considers to be
Dolgoff's weaknesses. And here is where, I think, the author has
a hard time defending anarcho-syndicalism.
     For Dolgoff, the defender  of the traditional anarchist
     "ideal," economics takes a back seat` to two higher
     principles: on the one hand, the inherent goodness of the
     human being: and on the other hand, the state whose demonic
     nature inexorably works towards the establishment of the
     dystopia of Orwellian totalitarianism. And so it happens
     that Dolgoff, though basically critical of romantic
     anarchists, often shares their weakness.(p.32)
          She goes on to say that " The idealization of the good in
human beings is as unrealistic as the demonization of both the
state and centralism." (P.32)
     She is critical of Dolgoff's "attempt to blame all evil on
the state, for to do so is almost to render all economic,
historical, or class analyses superfluous." (p.35)
     She criticizes him for his ideas of a "utopia of a
stateless, decentralized, 'natural' or 'organic' society." (p.35)
Dolgoff wrote an article entitled "Third World Nationalism and
the State." She cites this article as "describing the idyll of
loosely federated tribes without a central government and the
harmonious village communities in precolonial Africa, culminating
in the suggestion that anarchism could be established in Africa
by restoring the tribal system."(p.36)
     She then goes on to criticize this and I think fairly
correctly. "Dolgoff makes no mention of the potential of
industrial progress, implying that the solution to the problems
of the world's poorest countries is to turn back the wheel of
history by several centuries."(p.36)
     Further, she notes that some of Dolgoff's views some what
dovetail with those of the right-wing:

     He advises younger union colleagues to forget about the
     welfare state. Workers should demand their wages without
     deductions, set up independent unions, and administer their
     own social security and health insurance. As understandable
     as this position may be, considering the history of union
     corruption and the fact that labor representatives have
     traded working class rage for the meager benefits of a
     minimal welfare state, there could be no benefit in
     rejecting minimal welfare and unions if this strategy never
     went beyond the stage of a self-destructive boycott. That
     would simply be to play into the hands of union busters.
     (p.32)

     NOAM CHOMSKY

          Of Noam Chomsky, the author notes that " the fact that his
social theories have always contained anarcho-syndicalist and
council communist positions is usually overlooked." (p.37)
     I think it is significant that she brings out the
significance of anarchism in Chomsky's thinking.
     The author states that Chomsky  "subscribes to anarchism,
because, among other things, its theorists are the only ones who
have recognized totalitarianism as the "real basis of our
age."(p.40) Yet, she says he "never fell into the conservative
trap lurking behind this viewpoint. (p. 40). She does not admit
that this concept of "totalitarianism" is a non-class analysis of
the political forces at play today. But she does admit that this
non-class analysis has been a mainstay of conservative politics.
     The author discusses Chomsky's adherence to anarcho-
syndicalism:

     For Chomsky, anarcho-syndicalist society will be
     characterized by production conceived and carried out by the
     producers and their councils. Another important notion is
     that the state is in and of itself an instrument of
     repression. Chomsky also stressed the modernity of anarcho-
     syndicalist forms of organization as suitable for industrial
     society. (p.44)

     According to her Chomsky is very sympathetic to Bakunin and
is very hostile to Leninism. "He calls Leninism a 'particularly
obscene variant' of the idea that the ignorant masses must be
ruled in their own interest by those allegedly more intelligent."
(p.39) This is another notable feature of anarchism in general.
     According to her, Chomsky compares the "opportunism of
Leninist and liberal intellectuals." As an example of this; "he
uses the Spanish Civil War as an example of how Bolshevism and
Western liberalism were united in their opposition to the
anarchists' social revolution." (p.39)
     In regards to his views on Lenin, Chomsky may have some
disagreements with others in the anarchist tradition. The author
worries about what she calls "blind identification of young anti-
authoritarians" with Third World liberation movements. This is
undoubtedly a problem in the left-wing political movement. She
links Chomsky's opposition to this with his opposition to
Leninism.

     Despite his unwavering sympathy with the New Left, Chomsky
     never shared its unconditional identification with Third
     World revolutionaries. As a libertarian socialist and
     internationalist (much like the Old Left anarchists) he
     rejects the authoritarian Leninism of most Third World
     revolutionary anti-imperialist liberation movements, whose
     libertarian elements, he notes, are always the first to fall
     victim to imperialism, ...(p.42)

          Further, the author states that Chomsky does not share the
views of other anarchists against intellectualism in general.
"Unlike Bakunin's, Chomsky's critique of intellectuals is
directed only against the misuse of intellect and knowledge. He
is very vocal in his rejection of the traditional anarchist
mistrust of science per se." (p. 39)
     The author seems basically to like Chomsky's views. She is
somewhat critical of his views on human nature as she is of other
anarchists:

     As far as nature is concerned, almost all leftist
     anarchists, past and present, share Rousseau's notion of the
     noble savage, inside us, irrespective of the extent to which
     they have abandoned early socialist utopianism. Chomsky
     emphasizes that it is the social nature of humans that
     pushes humankind toward progress and perfection, an idea
     reminiscent of Kropotkin's notion of mutual aid.(p.151)

     ECO-ANARCHISM

          In discussing the second trend of anarchism in the U.S.,
eco-anarchism, the author traces many of its roots to Kropotkin.
"With the disintegration of the New Left and the rise of
ecological awareness, Kropotkin's communal ideas were
rediscovered as a means of developing eco-anarchism, especially
in the U.S." (p.2)
     Murray Bookchin is the person whom she discusses as an
important representative of eco-anarchism. Here, she sums up what
she thinks are some of his views.

     Murray Bookchin... belongs to the avante-garde of eco-
     anarchist philosophers. He combines the ecologist tenet of a
     natural equilibrium with elements of early socialism and
     communalism. He refers to nature as a "source of ethical
     meaning" and derives human spirit, ethics, and rationality
     from it. He distances himself from anarcho-syndicalism whose
     basis-unionism and the class struggle-he believes is
     outdated. In his own concept, called municipalism, Bookchin
     seeks to revive the New England tradition of public town
     meetings. The "community as a whole," he says. not the
     workers or their unions, should decide about community
     affairs.  (p.2-3)

          In talking about Bookchin the author considers him to be "a
household name among anarchists and ecologists. Especially in
Germany, Bookchin's redefinition of anarchism in ecological terms
has revived interest in it, and his writings played an important
role in the early alternative movement." (p.48)
     What are some important aspects of his writing and activity.
activity.
     In 1964 Bookchin wrote an article "Ecology and Revolutionary
Thought" which Bookchin refers to as the "manifesto of the
ecological movement." The author says this article was "a
pioneering critique of the damage and destruction of the
environment." She makes this criticism of the article; "While he
does confront the issues of bureaucratization, alienation, and
mechanical standardization, he addresses neither social
injustice, class inequality, poverty, hunger, racism, and war."
She notes that Bookchin concludes that; "The sovereignty (of
nature over man) has been forgotten by humans who must be seen as
a 'high;y destructive parasite' which 'threatens to destroy its
host - the natural world- and eventually itself." (p.68-69)
     In discussing Bookchin's adherence to anarchism in this
article she states; "Bookchin holds that the 'integrative,
reconstructive aspect of ecology' leads to anarchism whose
primordial aspects are anti-urbanism, distrust in technology, and
the attraction of village and agricultural life." (p.70)
     Bookchin wrote an article in 1966 entitled "Listen Marxist."
The author says that in this article; "He recounts how the
Russian workers and peasants spontaneously organized themselves,
describes the Machno movement, the Kronstadt uprising, the
solidarity of the workers of St. Petersburg, and revives memories
of the 'Workers' Opposition,' .. information long forgotten or
repressed, and the time not widely known." (p.72)
     Regarding this article the author also states that:

     Bookchin thinks that Marx's analysis is outdated and no
     longer applicable  to modern affluent society. Ignoring
     poverty and hunger, especially in the Third World, he says
     that economic need is no longer a problem. Capitalism, which
     'itself performs many of the tasks ...regarded as
     socialist,'(from Bookchin "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" p.202)
     has not only eliminated economic shortages by introducing
     new technologies, but can also overcome its periodic crises.
     Thanks to the welfare state, which has bought off the
     workers, the class struggle has been integrated into
     capitalism itself. (p.73)

          The author notes other aspects of Bookchin's views expressed
in this article.  He considers class struggle to be a " disease."
Class struggle will come "to an end in post-scarcity society. The
traditional class structure, the patriarchal family, and
authoritarian educational methods are all in the process of
dissolution." (p.73-74)
     Furthermore she says that for Bookchin "classes within
capitalist society will disappear" and the "time for the
revolution finally comes after social classes have disappeared."
(p.74)

     He declares modern youth to be the representatives of 'life-
     impulses in humanity's nature-the urgings of desire,
     sensuousness, and the lure of the marvelous.'(from Bookchin
     "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" p.61) Today's youth, raised in
     affluence, are hedonistic, disregard taboos, and shy away
     from work in revolt against the puritanism and work ethic of
     their middle-class or class-conscious proletarian parents.
     Since the struggle against need has already been won, what
     remains is the fight for the cultural revolution. The middle
     classes, the workers, and society as a whole will follow in
     the footsteps of the young avante-garde, adopt their
     bohemian life-style, practice free love, take to communal
     life, reject work and consumer goods, and 'live the
     revolution in all its totality.'(Bookchin, p.67)(p.74)

          The author states that in her opinion; " Bookchin plays off
cultural revolution against social revolution, 'self-liberation'
against 'mass liberation' or 'class liberation' and , in the
final analysis, the revolution against its meaning - social
change."(p.74)
     She further states that "What begins as a well-stated,
leftist critique of Leninism and Stalinism turns into bourgeois
anti-communism, bohemian life-style philosophy, and youth-driven
revolution ontology."
     To me this is a general problem of the more left wing brands
of anarchism.  I consider it necessary to develop the critique of
that legacy coming out of the Soviet Union and of the so-called
socialist countries which passes for communism, but which is in
reality an ideology which defends state capitalism. However, I
think it is because of their fundamental weaknesses of non-
materialism and plans for fundamental change without the class
struggle that I don't see anarchism accomplishing such a
critique. Instead, as with Bookchin, the anarchist critique
frequently ends up equating bohemian life-style changes as the be
all and end all of the critique of bureaucratic state capitalism.
     The author further concludes that; "It is capitalism's
growth, Babylonian immorality, and unlimited greed that makes
Bookchin hate capitalism and modernity. He seems to despise
industry more than industrial exploitation, the greed of the
exploiter more than the plight of the exploited, the
materialistic mentality of capitalism more than its unjust and
murderous reality. The alternatives are the tribe, village,
handicrafts, small trade, small capitalism - everything that is
limited and confined." (p.87)
      The author goes on to discuss Bookchin's role since the
1980's. In the late 1980's, despite his own penchant for
idealizing pre-industrial society Bookchin criticized
"irrationalist and antihumane ecofundamentalism." The author then
gives a revealing history of Earth First and its origins in the
extreme right-wing.
      She discusses Earth First's neo-Malthusianism and social
Darwinist philosophy and it connection to fascist ideology.
"'Down with people'" is said to be one of the Earth Firster
campfire battle cries. Its critique of technology, in combination
with a voracious nostalgia advocating a return to the Stone Age,
regards everything since the invention of the pulley as the
devil's work." She notes Earth First's anti-immigrant activities
and quotes one of their writers Miss Ann Thropy "If radical
environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human
population back to ecological sanity, it would probably be
something like AIDS." (p.50)
     The author credits Bookchin with being "one of the first to
call these neo-Malthusian misanthropes what they are." She says
that: "in 1987 Bookchin and his followers decided to refer to
their own philosophy as Social Ecology  to stress their concern
about social problems and their conviction that capitalism is the
source of both social and ecological destruction." She discusses
some splits between the advocates of the Earth First type "Deep
Ecology" and adherents of "Social Ecology."  Bookchin she refers
to as "the intellectual founding father of the Vermont Greens."
(p.60) She credits him with being a major influence in the Left
Greens. This probably has a lot to do Bookchin's critique of
"Deep Ecology."
     She notes that Bookchin's strategy for change is what he and
others call "municipalization."  She notes that Bookchin's
strategy is based on the  traditional New England town meetings.
"In the revived institution of the town meeting Bookchin and his
comrades hope initially to assume the role of a 'parallel ethical
system of governance" to influence local politics. In the long
term they hope to replace capitalism with a decentralized,
participatory democracy anchored entirely in public town
meetings."
     The author attended a New England town meeting with Bookchin
and his associates. Her description of this meeting and
Bookchin's glorification of it is very interesting. "It was in
every way the most conservative and-lily-white- meeting I have
ever attended in the U.S. I felt that it someone had stood up,
said he or she was a Green, a leftist, or an anarchist, proposed
ending capitalism, or even raised the issue of equal rights for
African-Americans, he or she would surely have been considered
completely crazy."
     She notes how Bookchin and associates felt that the
Democrats in this town meeting were worse than the Republicans
because of their "centralistic state philosophy." They felt that
" Vermont Republicans are not like Reagan or Bush; they are real
'libertarian' decentralists who don't want to have anything to do
with government or the [welfare] state, because they are proud
and want to live independent lives; but, of course, unlike the
Greens they are for free enterprise."
     This was a rather enlightening discussion of how far off
some anarchists from any concept of class struggle and how far
off from any concept of change for and by the working class and
oppressed. And, it shows how, among even some of those who are
considered "left" anarchists, the actual social program has
aspects in common with the most right-wing.

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM

     The author gives a rather extensive discussion of the
development of what she calls anarcho-capitalist thought. She
traces its origins to Max Stirner. She discusses his views and
those of Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker "the most important
representatives" of American individualism. She says their views
are "another source of pro-capitalist anarchism."
     She interviewed Murray Rothbard  whom she calls the
"intellectual leader of the anarcho-capitalists. She also
reviewed some of his writings. She also interviewed five
Libertarians, four of whom referred to themselves as anarchists.
     This a brief summation of her tracing of the anarcho-
capitalists' views.

     Today individualist anarchists in the U.S. call themselves
     anarcho-capitalists or libertarians; some, though not all,
     are organized in the Libertarian Party. Many of them, like
     their intellectual leader, Murray Rothbard...are former Ayn
     Randians who turned antistatist in the late 1960's. Like
     Rand(who was far from being an anarchist), the anarcho-
     capitalists are followers of the Austrian School of
     Economics; its most famous theorist was Ludwig von Mises and
     its youngest leading intellectual is Milton Friedman,
     adviser to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The
     libertarians radicalize Mise's antisocial free market
     ideology to its extreme culmination in the abolition of
     government. They intend to privatize the entire public
     sector including the police, the judiciary, the army, public
     transportation, education, and welfare. The only bond that
     holds together this dystopia of competition and survival of
     the fittest is natural law reduced to property law. Society
     is not responsible for the well-being and survival of human
     beings who do not own property. The legal code is rooted in
     retribution and included the death penalty and corporal
     punishment. (p.3)

          The author describes this brand of anarchism as "part and
parcel of the current drive to reproduce 19th-century capitalism
with all its misery and cruelty." (p. 4)
     In her discussion of this trend she also notes how many
libertarians have sympathy for Nazi fascism.
     I found it interesting that the author notes some
ideological commonalities between the extreme right in anarchism
and left-wing anarchism. She is, of course, correct in pointing
out that the extreme right in anarchism is very much in line with
the current capitalist offensive against the masses.
     The author does note that left anarchism is making a
comeback. She sees part of the reason for this being the result
of the collapse of the so-called communist regimes.
     I see it as a major problem facing the revolutionary
political movement that most of those forces who say they are
Marxist are reformists or are committed to opposition to the mass
movements from a so-called "revolutionary" position.  As well,
many of the forces calling themselves Marxists have played a bad
role in the political movements with various types of extreme
bureaucratism and sectarianism. And a lot of the more left wing
and radical activists are attracted to anarchism
     I think it is important for these activists to consider the
legacy of anarchism seriously. I think many of the weaknesses
with anarchism that the author indeed notes are fundamental
weaknesses of anarchist theory. I have read some of the anarchist
critique of bureaucracy and sectarianism prevalent in the left-
wing radical movement. And some of it captures well the
rottenness that exists. However, I don't think this justifies
adhering to anarchism. Instead, I think the revolutionary
character of scientific socialism needs to be reiterated and
brought to the fore in guiding a revolutionary political
movement.
     Further, I think the discussion of anarchism in this book
gives some useful insight on what issues need to be addressed
among left-wing activists in order to combat anarchism. []
===========================================================

For a free sample issue of _The Chicago Workers' Voice Theoretical
Journal_, send a request with a mailing address to me by email,
Jack Hill <mlbooks@xxxxxxx>

or write to CWV, P.O. Box 11542, Chicago, IL 60611

--=====================_839394302==_--



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---