[OPE-L] The Paris Commune, the State, and Venezuela

[Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx]

[Michael L wrote:]

> [...] to create a state of the Paris Commune-type (the kind that

> Marx advocated).

 

Michael:

 

Whether the Paris Commune was a state is controversial.  For

Bakunin the Paris Commune was a "clearly formulated negation

of the state." 

 

Most anarchists wouldn't agree that the Paris Commune was a state.

See:

< http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/commune.html >

< http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/ParisCommune.html  >

< http://www.enrager.net/history/articles/paris-commune-1871/ >

They could therefore support the Commune and still oppose the state

without being inconsistent.

 

From a certain perspective, the autonomous area in Chiapas might

be seen as similar to the Paris Commune.  Indeed, autonomy was

one of the central principles of the Commune since the society based

on the communes would be based on the "absolute autonomy of

the Commune ... assuring to each its integral rights and to each Frenchman

the full exercise of his aptitudes, as a man a citizen and a labourer.  The

autonomy of the Commune will have for its limits only the equal autonomy

of all other communes adhering to the contract; their association must ensure

the liberty of France" ("Declaration to the French People") 

< http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/commune.html >

 

 

Anarchists and autonomist Marxists would agree that it is necessary to

have *organization*  to defeat reaction and that the masses should

mobilize for the purpose of *self-defense*.  I would think that they would

welcome the arming of poor citizens of Venezuela outside of the

confines of the state (i.e. in neighborhood and community organizations)

and  the beginnings of  workers' control in the factories.  It would

seem to me therefore that they could support the Venezuelan revolution

as a process without supporting Chavez the person or endorsing the state. 

 

What is most important is not whether one supports Chavez.  What

is important is that in the ongoing class conflicts in Venezuela, one

takes the side of the poor and working class against bourgeois

forces and the reaction.  I.e. the critical question is: which side of

the barricades are you on?    I  have no fear that John H or  other

autonomists (or anarchists, for that matter) will find themselves on the

wrong side of the barricades in Venezuela.  Do you really think that if

there was another coup attempt or an imperialist provocation that

John  would be indifferent or on the wrong side?

 

In solidarity, Jerry