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

[Paul Zarembka <zarembka@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry,

You have made my point.  It is not so simple to just say "which side are
you on".

You give the example of Stalinists in Spain or Germany. I gave the example
here of anarchists (since you mentioned anarchism).  I could have used
your examples. The point is the same.

In the instant case of Venezuela, Michael offered some useful observations
about the complexity of the 'left' of there.  I sense you feel anarchism
is ipso facto on the workers side of the barricades, little discussion
needed.

Paul

************************************************************************
RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,  Paul Zarembka, editor,  Elsevier Science
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka


On Thu, 19 May 2005 glevy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> > I've be out of the country for two weeks and am catching up.
>
> Hi Paul Z,
> Welcome back.
>
> > Jerry's remark below caught my attention:
> > > > 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 my view, this is much too simple.  Take, for example, the Civil War
> in Spain.  Can one really reduce it to "which side are you on"?  I think
> not, and the formulation has a danger of dogmatism.  Take the SPD and/or
> KPD in early 1930s Germany,  How would you answer your own question?
> > Put another way, successful revolutionary politics is extremely complex
> and one's subjective intentions can lead to the best or worst of
> results. And, yes, I do have fears about anarchism.  Was Emma Goldman
> getting Berkman to shoot Frick or Czolgocz, McKinley (I live EXACTLY on
> the street where McKinley was shot!),
>
> [and I live a few blocks away from where Emma Goldman lived in NYC]
>
> > a progressive political practice?  not to my way of thinking.
>
> OK, let's take -- for example -- the Spanish Civil War.   You say that you
> have fears about anarchism, but the praxis of the anarchists in the CNT
> and the anarcho-syndicalists in the POUM was _far more_ progressive than
> that in the brigades under the leadership of the Spanish Communist Party.
> The CP -- and more importantly, their leadership abroad in the person of
> Stalin -- rather than forming a united front with the anarchists against
> the fascist threat, sabotaged the anarchists and assassinated much of
> their leadership.  In so doing, they led to the military and political
> defeat  of the Republican cause  and the ultimate victory of  Franco and
> the fascists. The lesson there wasn't that Marxists should fear
> anarchists,
> but that they should oppose Stalinism (which, btw, to put it in John's
> terms was a pro-state authoritarian, bureaucratic political movement ...
> in what Alam called "really existing socialism") and form united fronts
> with other leftists against fascism.
>
> There was a similar lesson in Germany.  Had the SPD and the KPD  run a
> single slate in the election, then Hitler would not have been elected to
> power.   Had the KPD and the SPD and other left organizations including
> anarchists formed a united front against the Nazis, then they could have
> effectively  resisted the fascists and defeated them.  The political line
> of the KPD, which was imposed on them from above by a much higher force
> within the hierarchy of  the Stalin-led state, prevented this (as they
> were in their "Third Period" phase).
>
> These policies by "Marxists" and "socialists" inflicted _far more_  harm
> on the international working class than any actions which anarchists ever
> took.  *A lesson of history for Marxists is not that Marxists should fear
> anarchists but that we should fear and distrust many individuals and
> groups who call themselves "Marxist"*.    At least anarchists have a
> *healthy* anti-authoritarian impulse; we as Marxists need to develop our
> critical and anti-authoritarian sensibilities.
>
> Of course, there are any number of additional historical experiences that
> we can look to.
>
> *What are the historical experiences where the working class has been
> able to claim victory in a socialist revolutionary  process where before
> that revolution they trusted the elected leadership of the state and
> where the state then eventually  dissolved as a state and was
> reconstituted as a communal or council organization directed by the
> popular will of the working class and the poor?*
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>