Re: [Marxism] Marxism and anrchism!

[Jeff <meisner@xxxxxxxxx>]

I know that "me too" posts on email lists are considered bad form and a
waste of bandwidth. But in this one case I would like to urge a second (or
first!) reading of JAI's excellent insight, which I have reformatted for
easier reading:

At 19:18 12/05/09 -0700, "johnaimani" <johnaimani@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No.  The 'leadership principle' is what must be
struggled against.  This is not a call for an
equality of mediocrity that a cynic might imply
to this but a clarion for achievement, social
achievement.  Discussion not orders, shared
responsibility and decision-making.

And the argument is not so much as against "being
told what to do" (though that is exactly how it
plays out in real life) as it is against the
idea, the prevailing 'wisdom', that there must
exist an agency outside of ourselves and thereby
above ourselves.  Matters not whether this agency
exists because it is stronger and has asserted
itself into its position and/or because we, as
the masses, are weak uncertain and untrusting of
ourselves.

It is said that it was man that created God in
his own image.  A pale reflection of that 'glory'
is our own continued foisting of a man on
horseback upon ourselves.

JAI


What I read here, and almost nowhere else, is the identification of a human
frailty which is exploited by the ruling class, but which is also regularly
misused by those of us trying to overthrow their system. The eagerness of
humans to believe in god and the supernatural -- despite the absolute lack
of hard evidence and contrary to centuries of scientific knowledge! --
represents a clear shortcoming in the human psyche. And here JAI has drawn
the link between the belief and subservience to the non-existent "lord"
god, and people's same tendency to "worship" and be subservient to feudal
lords or the more modern varieties of "lords." And yes, even to seek
"lords" to lead their struggle against the masters which they are rebelling
against.

That's where we come in. If you start with the priority of anti-capitalist
revolution, and go by the maxim of "the ends justify the means," then it is
not surprising that a party will see as its task the creation of individual
"leaders," and also "leadership institutions" (analogous to the holy
church) which can capture the loyalty of "the masses." And that is exactly
what parties do (although everyone is happy to denounce "vanguardism" but
no one admits to it!), with the laudable intention of bringing about social
revolution, the end of class society, and the consequent flowering of true
democracy once the material basis for class dictatorship has been eliminated.

Like too many approaches based on "the ends justify the means," we find in
practice that the means tend to become the ends. In other words, the
survival of the revolution requires further loyalty to the leadership,
which is accomplished by taking further advantage of this human flaw. The
principle that "power corrupts" comes into play, and voila, you have (in
the worst case) the rise of a Stalin and the negation of any democracy in
the "revolutionary" society that has been achieved through the spilling of
so much blood.

When people who in some cases are described as "anarchists" point out the
depth of that failure, and the need to build democratic values into the
struggle at all stages, it is extremely foolish for "Marxists" to ignore
them on the basis that "We just need to make a revolution by any means
necessary, and we'll worry about democracy later."

If I thought that the difference between Anarchism and Marxism was over
whether democratic means were to be employed in the struggle, then I would
renounce Marxism in a heartbeat. Of course that isn't the difference, but
the perennial failure of Marxists forces to break with vanguardism IN
PRACTICE, our failure to promote self-leadership rather than alternate
leadership, has led to repeated tragedies. That statement applies both to
the leadership of the struggle BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the revolution.

It is interesting that there were no real negative responses on this list
to the "anarchist" rejection of vanguardism. Indeed it seems that Marxists
on this list take that to be a criticism of all the OTHER Marxists! Denial
only insures continuation of the problem. For instance, our friend
Waistline2 did a good job with the revelation that HIS (ex-) party, unlike
all the others, had no role in thinking of itself as a leadership body
"giving orders," but was only giving voice to the natural will of the
revolutionary masses, etc. etc.

Time to wake up and take seriously our biggest failure. Just pointing out
that the capitalists are "more" undemocratic doesn't cut it for me.

- Jeff

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu