who will represent us? we will of course

just read this great response to hilary wainwright's who will represent us? by simon tormey (i'm sure i've heard that name before...) wainwrights' piece was the usual startlingly original lefty appeal for a new party to unite us all, and tormey's reply is a great rejection of the whole idea of representation. whilst i have a few reservations about his rather rosy view of chavez, who appears to be more than a little guilty of acting as a representative (i.e. subverting the desires of venezuelans for his own purposes), but all the same, tormey has picked up on something that many of this blog's leftist detractors don't seem to have:-

Similarly, the new politics of the ‘left’ in Britain will be a complete irrelevance if it is does not see that the desire for autonomy and self-definition is not something that can be corralled into a political party, which is altogether too rigid and boring a format for individuals with plans and projects of their own. What we need, and increasingly, what is being created, are spaces in which the anger and disillusionment we feel can be channelled into productive and effective resistances against incorporation into the schemes of the politicians, benign, ‘progressive’ or otherwise.

hal draper: give me a break

in response to my recent post on anarchism over marxism, tom u, a local comrade, directed me to hal draper's criticisms of anarchism. i couldn't find the 'critiques of other socialisms' piece that tom was referring to, but looked at his 'the two souls of socialism' with horror. in the section entitled 'the myth of anarchist libertarianism', draper simply drags up lots of personal issues he has with proudhon (which, to be fair, paint him as a thoroughly nasty piece of work) but barely comments on his political philosophy. as we are anarchists, not proudhonists, these personal failings are irrelevant. for a more insightful look into proudhon's work, check out gambone's 'proudhon and anarchism', whose opening paragraph contains the line

Marx did a hatchet job on Proudhon and Marxists such as Hal Draper took quotes out of context or dug up embarrassing statements that made Proudhon look authoritarian or proto-fascist. There are also anarchists who claim he is "inconsistent" or "not quiet an anarchist"

however

When I finally read his works, far from appearing "inconsistent" or "not quite an anarchist", the "Sage of Besancon" had created a practical and anti-utopian anarchism - An anarchism based upon a potential within actually existing society and not a doctrine or ideology to be imposed from outside.

i'm certainly not convinced that comments about proudhon's personal life make for a compelling critique of anarchist theory.

next up for the 'razor sharp' criticism is bakunin. draper writes:

The story is similar with the second "Father of Anarchism," Bakunin, whose schemes for dictatorship and suppression of democratic control are better known than Proudhon's.

so much so, in fact, that draper doesn't feel the need to actually document any of them. seeing as most of these assertions seem to have been made up by marx who had a personal dislike of the man, it's hard to see that this has any credibility at all. the behind-the-scenes string pulling an wrangling marx employed to expel both bakunin and his social democratic alliance from the first international, surely illustrate who the anti-democratic party was in that dispute. the allegations come from a wilful misinterpretation of bakunin's term 'invisible dictatorship'. whilst this has clearly been taken out of context by many marxists, once again it should be stressed that we do not follow the writings of bakunin, or have him as our political idol. as bakunin himself wrote in a letter:

These [revolutionary] groups would not seek anything for themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power. . . [but] would be in a position to direct popular movements . . . [via] the collective dictatorship of a secret organisation. . . The dictatorship. . . does not reward any of the members. . . or the groups themselves. . . with any. . . official power. It does not threaten the freedom of the people, because, lacking any official character, it does not take the place of State control over the people, and because its whole aim. . . consists of the fullest realisation of the liberty of the people.

for an anarchist interpretation of bakunin's invisible dictatorship see this piece.

finally draper comes up with something resembling a thesis:-

Anarchism is not concerned with the creation of democratic control from below, but only with the destruction of "authority" over the individual, including the authority of the most extremely democratic regulation of society that it is possible to imagine...
Anarchism is on principle fiercely anti-democratic, since an ideally democratic authority is still authority. But since, rejecting democracy, it has no other way of resolving the inevitable disagreements and differences among the inhabitants of Theleme, its unlimited freedom for each uncontrolled individual is indistinguishable from unlimited despotism by such an individual, both in theory and practice.

The great problem of our age is the achievement of democratic control from below over the vast powers of modern social authority. Anarchism, which is freest of all with verbiage about something-from-below, rejects this goal. It is the other side of the coin of bureaucratic despotism, with all its values turned inside-out, not the cure or the alternative.

but surely democratic voting can result in terrible mistakes, and those opposed to its intended consequences have a duty to act and prevent those consequences? if a referendum were to be held in the uk right now on whether asylum laws should be tightened, undoubtedly the majority of people would vote for that measure, in spite of its repressive consequences. anarchists would reject the legitimacy of that vote, and act in order to prevent its implementation. what about wildcat strikes? they're the decision of a minority to resist their oppression, and surely not 'undemocratic'.

the anarchism website has some rebuttals to draper, that question his proposed alternatives to anarchism:-

Draper argues for "democratic control from below" instead of anarchism. Of course, anarchists like Bakunin had argued for elected, mandated and recallable delegates long before the Paris Commune but let us forget that little fact. So what does Draper's scheme actually involve. Marxism, as Lenin made clear, does not aim for direct working class power, but power to the party, which we have to obey (or else!). As Trotsky put it, "a revolution is 'made' directly by a minority. The success of a revolution is possible, however, only where this minority finds more or less support, or at least friendly neutrality, on the part of the majority." So Draper's "democratic control from below" simply results in power being centralised into fewer and fewer hands. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" becomes, in fact, the "dictatorship over the proletariat" by the party.

my own view is that the empowerment of individuals is the only effective brake on the development of authoritarian hierarchical structures. this is not anti-democratic, and indeed many anarchists of today call for the achievement of true democracy. david graeber claims that

[Anarchism] is a movement about reinventing democracy. It is not opposed to organization. It is about creating new forms of organization. It is not lacking in ideology. Those new forms of organization are its ideology. It is about creating and enacting horizontal networks instead of top-down structures like states, parties or corporations; networks based on principles of decentralized, non-hierarchical consensus democracy.

direct democracy is what we seek, and hal draper aint got a clue.

the left and anarchism

after some back and forth at workers' liberty, i decided to conclude what seemed like a fruitless argument by clarifying some of the political ideas that i find important and useful, and areas where i thought it might be possible for socialists and anarchists to work together. i've reposted it below.

*

i don't feel that this debate is taking a fruitful path as we both [myself and an awl member] seem to be convinced of our own viewpoints and unconvinced by the other's. you say that my theories are vague and wishy-washy, i say that yours are rigid and authoritarian. you point to revolutions of the past, i point to insurrections of the present. whilst this can be frustrating, hence my rather over the top statements at times, i don't wish to be rude or invasive. my only purpose in engaging with this debate was to say: yes, i do agree with socialists on a lot of points. there can be no doubt that a revolution of class and property relations needs to be achieved, for the benefit of humankind. this alone is enough to draw anarchists and socialists together on a great deal of issues. on these it would be mutually advantageous to work together where possible.

on the other hand, i feel that the classical anarchist critique of the state and political parties is important, and too easily ignored by socialists. power does corrupt even those of us with the best intentions, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, in anarchists' opinion, is bound to corrupt the struggle for a just society.

further, more recent post-left tendencies within anarchism, critique the workerist approach of traditional left-wing socialists and anarchists. this approach questions the paramount importance given to the worker within leftist traditions, and indeed, whether work itself is a force for good or bad. a good exposition of this kind of thinking can be found in bob black's 'the abolition of work', but the start of a trend towards this mode of thinking can be traced through the work of the situationists, who derived their theory from traditional marxist thought, whilst taking it further. work, post-leftists would suggest, is resolutely not "what defines human beings", but is merely a spook (in stirner's terminology). spooks are those abstractions instilled by religion, the state, morality, etc. that prevent the satisfaction of desire. (for more on desire, repression, and revolution, the works of wilhelm reich, who was a marxist writing in the '30s who became disillusioned with the cause, are instructive. maurice brinton gives a good introduction in 'the irrational in politics'.) the work ethic is clearly a spook, as it does not benefit the worker, only the worked-for. work means the continual delaying of satisfaction both in work time and in leisure time, that rationed portion of time left over when the best part is already consumed by work. we surely do not want to align ourselves with the statement 'arbeit macht frei'.

related to this is the post-left critique of technology. whilst most socialists, like most others in society, consider advancements in technology to equal 'progress', many in the green anarchist movement are opposed to technological 'advance'. technology and industry, they argue, are at the heart of our lurch towards ecological collapse. there can be no maintenance of our current technology without the total devastation of the climate and biosphere. most socialists imagine technological fixes to these problems, but the only answer that i see as pragmatic is a massive shift towards local organisation of production, and away from heavy industries. many, like yourself, see these changes as a regression, but this is, i would suggest, a reference to the myth of progress as inextricably linked with technology. for me, it would not be "going back to the Middle Ages" because the middle ages were marred by an intensely oppressive feudal social organisation. obviously, we would wish to arrange our society according to principles of consent, rather than repression.

this is linked to the abolition of work, because, were we to embrace a ludic rather than workerist view of life, we would necessarily need to live without factories and large-scale industry. after all, who would choose to work on a production line?

the primitivists, like john zerzan whose 'future primitive' is a classic text, would go further still. their beef with technology is that it out of necessity requires a division of labour, and the creation of specialists. specialism means that some individuals have access to knowledge and skills that others don't, and can subsequently use that as social leverage, in coercion. this cannot create a harmonious society, say the primitivists. instead they take inspiration from hunter-gatherers who are self-sufficient, have a much greater awareness of their ecosystems, and 'work' for very little time each day, leaving the majority of their lives free for socialising with their families. whilst there can be no doubt that it is impossible to expect an immediate shift towards such a lifestyle, i think that many of these are desirable aspects of society that many of us would want, if we were able to obtain them.

i hope that this has given a flavour of some of, what i find, the more relevant and consistent tendencies within anarchism of the recent past. whilst there are many who might call themselves libertarian or anarchist who cling to spooks like nation, organised religion, rights, or the principles of capitalism, as i find them inconsistent with the core anarchist principle of antiauthoritarianism i do not consider their pretentions to those titles as credible.

as far as practical progress is concerned, i also have a tendency to agree that many of the tactics pursued by socialists are important. collective action within the workplace is, of course, an important way of challenging the bosses, and capitalist thinking. however, we must be careful to avoid mediation by union hierarchies, or disempowering petitions to authority. that is why i would promote, not fetishise, direct actions (not 'Direct Action', a label that seems to be limited to jumping in front of bulldozers, blockading roads, and smashing american bombers), actions that allow an individual to realise their power and act for themselves. these are actions that make the corruption of unions and other organisations by power-seeking individuals harder, because people are more likely to think critically, and for themselves, rather than following the leader.