INTERNATIONAL LABOUR GREECE:

GREEK TRUCKERS END STRIKE:

Striking truck drivers in Greece voted late yesterday to end their week long walkout, and they are expected to resume normal work on Monday. While many drivers refused to obey the "civil mobilization" order (a back-to-work order with military draft provisions) the government managed to commandeer enough trucks that, with their own vehicles, they were well on the way to restocking fuel supplies across the country. It 9is doubtful if this would have been a long term viable solution, but it was enough to force the truckers back to work.

A few comments are in order. The first is that this strike, unlike the symbolic general strikes of the opposition to the government's austerity program (or the even more ineffective aimless rioting of the left wing of the opposition), actually posed a real economic threat, and it prompted the state into action that it has usually held back from during the course of the present crisis. It also showed coincidentally the futility of any dreams of overthrowing the government. It would be a simple "turn of the tap", and a revolutionary Greece would rapidly become a collapsed revolutionary Greece being as all Greece's energy needs are supplied from abroad.

This may highlight the essential nature of the government/population confrontation ie stalemate with time on the side of the government. The opposition cannot play the 'ultimate threat' card. They know it. The government knows it. The general population knows it. The only ones who don't know it are a small number of romantic revolutionaries. The nature of the Greek crisis is also such that any alternative to the present socialist government would inevitably end up acting just as it does today, the conservatives because they would want to, and the communists and left-socialists because they would have to. A Greek government of any stripe would be severely constrained in its options. This situation presents the classic dilemma whereby politics, of the governmental variety, is absolutely futile. Yet it is also a situation where revolution would be equally futile.

Of course only a tiny minority of Greeks would dream of trying to go beyond the present system. The most overwhelming thing to notice about the opposition to the government's plan is how incredibly conservative, in the sense of trying to avoid any change, that it is. The struggles against the government are not for some new dispensation but rather to preserve a system of "entitlements" that various sectors of the working population see as in their interest or perhaps even vital to their interests. In the case of the truckers one can feel some sympathy for them because they have forked out huge amounts of money for exclusive licences in a sector which the government now intends to throw totally open. See the article below. This leaves the present truckers with huge debts and lower revenue.

So where does this leave the opposition to the Greek version of neoliberalism ? We can speak of rocks and hard places. For the left socialist and communist opponents it means keeping up the level of visible militancy in hopes of leaving a lasting memory that can be used for later political gain. In the case of the workers it means very much the same thing except that the goal is not any future political gain but rather the softening of the impact of the measures in the near future by a protracted period of bargaining with their enemy the state.

The anarchist opposition, small as it is (though far bigger than in most countries) ? The "concentration of mind" that the present crisis is forcing people to go through is hardly likely to result in a flow of public opinion to revolutionary strategies, anarchist or otherwise. The precise opposite is the likely result, and clinging to the old romantic shibboleths cannot make the anarchist alternative seem desirable in the public mind. Whether Greek anarchists can find their way through to a long term strategy that gradually builds the libertarian alternative without the deus-ex-machina of revolution is very much in question. It is, however, the only way to escape from the ghettoization that they presently suffer.

Here's the story of the end of the strike from the Sydney Morning Herald , bright and early on the other side of the world.

GSGSGSGSGS
Greek truckers end week-long strike

JOHN HADOULIS

Greek truckers have called off a week-long strike that stranded thousands of travellers and nearly dried up fuel around the country at the peak of the busy tourism season.

"We have decided, by narrow majority, to suspend the strike," the head of the Greek truck owners confederation, George Tzortzatos, told reporters on Sunday after a union meeting that lasted over three hours.

"Transporters will be back at the steering wheel as of tomorrow," he said.

The strikers backed down after the government sent out military and private trucks under police escort to bypass the protest and resupply hospitals, electricity plants and petrol stations in main cities.

Businesses ranging from hotels and car rentals to peach exporters have been badly hit by the strike, which began last Sunday over plans to reform the tightly-controlled freight sector for the first time in four decades.

Thousands of Greek and foreign travellers had to put their plans on hold or were stranded as fuel supplies dwindled to a trickle in main cities and holiday destinations such as Crete and the northern Halkidiki peninsula, with conditions only starting to improve on Saturday.

The truckers on Sunday said they would hold talks with the government over the reform which is designed to open the sector to full competition within three years, as part of efforts to revive the recession-mired Greek economy.

After talks with trucker unions collapsed, the authorities on Wednesday moved to requisition vehicles, but fuel all but ran out at major cities and travel destinations during the two days it took to implement the measure.

Meanwhile many drivers flouted the civil mobilisation order, tearing up their summons and refusing to turn up for work despite threats of prosecution.

At the main Greek port of Piraeus, the local trader association said many of the islands popular with holidaymakers had not been resupplied for days.

"The resupply of islands has been non-existent,"Piraeus trader association chairman George Zissimatos told Mega television.

"A lot of goods remained in warehouses, ten days were lost and now wholesalers are about to go on holiday themselves," he said.

A breakthrough finally came late on Saturday after the government said it would lift the civil mobilisation if the truckers closed down their protest.

No new trucking licenses have been issued in Greece for years, meaning that would-be operators can only purchase existing permits at high cost.

But the truckers complain that inviting competition into the freight sector by reducing new licence charges is unfair to existing operators who have already paid high start-up fees running up to 300,000 euros ($A436,047).

Greece has suffered waves of strikes and protests over unprecedented budget cuts and reforms the government had to agree to in order to tap a rescue package it desperately needed to stave off bankruptcy.

A debt default was narrowly averted in May after Greece received a huge bailout loan from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

Faced with nearly 300 billion euros ($A436.05 billion) of debt, it found itself unable to raise money on international markets in April as concerns mounted about the ability of the Greek economy to stay afloat.

ANARCHIST THEORY:

ANARCHIST ALTERNATIVES BY WAYNE PRICE:

I originally thought to publish the following piece by Wayne Price because, from the title, I thought it was a criticism of the apocalyptic viewpoint that far too many anarchists and leftists in general fall into. As will be obvious from the article below it is no such thing. In terms of that question it is, at best, a caution to not try and set timetables that are "imminent". That part is fairly obvious as the history of the left, anarchist and otherwise, is littered with predictions of the imminent demise of capitalism over the last 150 years. Littered to the tune of 100,000s of wrong predictions to be exact. The author still believes that such a collapse is inevitable, and in the long term he will inevitably be right because no social system lasts forever. Many points for noticing the obvious. The worm in the apple is that said economic and political system will collapse for reasons utterly outside the theories of leftists. NONE of the great founts of leftist wisdom predicted how the recent economic crisis would come about, and no legitimate economists and few investment advisers did any better. Reality has a habit of putting simplistic theories of complex phenomena to hard tests that they inevitably fail.

The Marxist economics that the following author thinks is so illuminating failed its test over 100 years ago as every single prediction that Marx made was falsified. Not one. Not some. Rather all. The whole matter was dealt with by Bernstein very thoroughly in 'Evolutionary Socialism' at the turn of the 20th century. As a "scientific" theory that can make testable predictions Marxism has been proven an abject failure for an incredibly long time.

I recognize that present day Marxists, the few of them that are left, hardly are not tremendously concerned with subjecting their beliefs to a scientific test. To them it is both a matter of faith and, to their minds, an "organizational necessity" to make their predictions. When they are proved wrong they sometimes resort to causisty of one sort or another to explain away the failure. More commonly they simply ignore their previous infallible predictions.

As may be apparent I disagree profoundly with what follows, especially as I am one of those dreaded "gradualists" and very unapologetic about it. Quite frankly it would take examples from real economics, real history and real sociology , as opposed to Marxist fantasies, to convince me that I was wrong. Predictions of 'inevitable collapse' even when intelligently put off into a nebulous future are not convincing arguments to my mind.

So, for what it is worth, here's the article.It is intelligently argued, but the premises are faulty. The following has been slightly edited for English spelling. The original is at the Anarkismo site.

@@@@@@@@@@
Are the Alternatives Really Socialist-Anarchism or Barbarism?
Is a Workers’ Revolution Necessary to Prevent Catastrophe?

Responds to arguments that it is not necessary to show that capitalism leads to social and ecological catastrophe in order to be a revolutionary anarchist.



A statement on the nature of the period and the economic crisis was published by US-NEFAC (US-Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists) (1). It resulted in a lot of discussion on at least one site (e.g., Anarchist Black Cat). While the majority of those who accessed that` site checked that they agreed with the statement mostly or somewhat, most of those who bothered to write a comment expressed varying degrees of disagreement. I am going to summarize the discussion, as I understand it, and make some remarks.

The basic view of the US-NEFAC statement is that capitalism as a world system is not doing too well and will be doing worse in the not-too-distant future. It does not deny the possibilities of short-term improvements, such as a relative recovery from the Great Recession, but it expects that the overall direction of the economy is downhill. There will be no return to the prosperity of the 50s or even of the 90s. Reforms and benefits may yet be won by the people, but over time the workers and oppressed will be faced with the alternatives of revolution or destruction. Without predicting just when there will be widespread reaction, it did expect an eventual popular radicalization and rebellion.

As evidence for the long-term crisis, there has been the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Wars continue, raising the dangers of world war and of a civilization-destroying nuclear war. Also there are deepening ecological and energy crises, especially global warming, which are acknowledged by almost everyone—and which is another aspect of the capitalist crisis.

For example, I happen to have in front of me a statement by the Green activist, Lorna Salzman (not an anarchist or socialist of any kind), who writes, “Expert scientists and scientific bodies now unanimously agree that we have less than ten years to reduce the CO2 concentration to 340 ppm…Beyond this period, irreversible and uncontrollable feedback will occur from disappearing ice sheets, melting permafrost, and ocean warming, reducing biodiversity, destroying coral reefs, acidifying the oceans, raising sea level, and leading inevitably to crises in drinking water, food production, land use, and public health that will cost societies far more than it will cost to mitigate or avoid these impacts” (2). Clearly great suffering is predictable for many people, because industrial capitalism has unbalanced the ecology and cannot repair it.

I am giving a very condensed review of the NEFAC statement’s viewpoint; I expanded on it, from my perspective, in an essay, “Socialism or Barbarism! Anarchism or Annihilation!” (3). Also see my review of a book on the causes of the Great Recession (4). I have argued that we are living through a reassertion of the basic conditions of the epoch of capitalist decay, such as had been apparent to all from 1914 to 1946.

The Future is Unpredictable….
Against this viewpoint, opponents made essentially three arguments. First, it was denied that it was possible to make such predictions with any confidence. Sure, things might get worse, but they also might get better. Who could say? After all the Great Depression and World War II were followed by a prolonged period of relative prosperity, from 1947 to about 1970. Throughout the Cold War, the big imperialists avoided nuclear war. And perhaps the international bourgeoisie will wise up and do something about the environment and energy.

The analysis of the downward slide toward destruction is based on Marxist economics (or, more precisely, on Marx’s critique of political economy). A humanistic, libertarian-democratic, interpretation of Marxism overlaps with class-struggle anarchism. The analysis is also based on the study of ecology and energy, integrated with Marxism and with anarchism (5). Some of our critics reject Marxist economics particularly, and others do not seem to know much about it or care to learn. Obviously it would take much more space and time than I have here to discuss the labor theory of value, the nature of surplus value, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the causes of business cycles, the epoch of monopoly capital and imperialism (and imperialist wars), as well as the causes of the limited prosperity after World War II and why this had to end. But neither have the critics spent time in expounding what is wrong with these conceptions.

Even integrated into an ecological awareness, these concepts do not lead to specific predictions, comparable to the natural sciences. Over the last decades, I have felt like a geologist who is predicting an eventual huge earthquake in California (the “big one”), and urges people to build more safely—but who cannot predict when the earthquake will occur—in a month, a year, a decade, or many decades. Social predictions are especially uncertain, since, unlike geological strata, classes are composed of people with consciousness and the ability to make choices (“free will”). But it has been possible to say, with reasonable confidence, that social earthquakes are coming.

The alternate view is scientifically nihilistic. It denies that groups of human beings act in repeatable patterns (“laws” or tendencies) about which we may generalize into probabilistic predictions. This belief in unpredictability is consistent with a liberal view: perhaps the state can, after all, be used to end exploitation. Who knows? Perhaps capitalism can peacefully and gradually evolve into libertarian socialism? Supposedly it cannot be predicted otherwise. Unfortunately such views disarm us before capitalist disaster.
Only a Moral Judgment is Required….
This leads into the second argument used against our view. Some say that we do not need to know that capitalism is going to cause catastrophe unless a revolution is made. It is enough, they say, to judge that anarchist-communism would be morally superior to capitalism. Among other anarchists, this view is held by Murray Bookchin and his followers.

I do not deny that libertarian socialism would be better than capitalism as a way for human beings to live and work. I insist on it. I reject any arguments—particularly from Marxists—that it unnecessary to make such a moral evaluation. But a moral argument is not enough, not by itself. It could just as well be used to justify a gradualist, reformist, program—and it often has. Once we have decided on a social goal, for moral reasons, we have to then decide how to reach this goal—by reformism or by revolution. This requires as objective as possible an analysis of how the system operates and what can be done to change it.

To take a revolutionary position requires something more than only moral judgment. It requires a belief that a revolution would not only be good but that it would be necessary. A revolution, even the most nonviolent, would involve mass struggle, suffering, bloodshed, and destruction. It is irresponsible to advocate revolution unless we believe that it is absolutely necessary. Nor would many people join one unless they were convinced that they had to. And they would be right not to.
It is Enough to Know Workers’ Consciousness….
Another argument which was raised also claims that it is not necessary to know the nature of the period or the tendency of capitalism toward self-destruction. What is necessary, this argument says, is to know the level of popular struggle, what issues excite workers, and what a revolutionary minority can do to join in popular struggles.

This argument is not so much wrong as one-sided. There are two possible unilateral positions which a revolutionary minority may take, both wrong. One is know-it-all, feeling that it is sufficient to know that socialist revolution is necessary. Then the revolutionaries go to preach to the unenlightened masses, telling them The Truth. As is well known, this is realistic picture of various sectarians.

The reciprocal error is to start from wherever the people are and build a program only as an elaboration of popular consciousness. It is certainly true that revolutionaries need to know what non-revolutionary workers and oppressed people are thinking. We need to know how to talk to them about our ideas. But we cannot just expand on their current consciousness. Popular consciousness is a very mixed bag, with progressive and reactionary ideas jumbled together. Working people are influenced by many sources, including the mass media, the church, and schools. These inculcate reactionary ideas along with positive beliefs in democracy, freedom, and fairness. Workers develop ideas based on their experiences, which include pushes toward radical consciousness, such as their oppression and their working collectively with others. But they also have experiences which push in other directions, such as job distinctions, some apparently decent jobs, demoralizing overwork or unemployment, etc. All-too-often these lead to racism, conservatism, sexism, superpatriotism, and religious superstition. But these can change drastically and quickly during periods of upheaval.

The revolutionary program cannot be based on workers’ current consciousness. That effort has historically been called “tail-endism” or “rank-and-fileism.” That is the approach, for example, of the US Solidarity group. Rather than sectarianism, in practice this is what is wrong with most of the Left.

Instead, the revolutionary program is based on the objective conditions, which means on the need for a socialist-anarchist revolution. In fact, the socialist-anarchist revolution is the program, the whole of the program. But to express the need for revolution requires breaking it up into specific planks, specific demands, slogans, and proposals. And how to explain these planks, demands, slogans, and proposals is based on the interaction between the objective analysis and popular consciousness. The revolutionary minority must be in a constant dialogue with working people—especially (but not only) with the most militant, active, and radicalized workers and youth.

As brief examples, faced with an assault on workers’ wages and conditions on the job, we should undoubtedly defend the workers’ demands for better pay, no givebacks, better conditions, and union protections—standard reforms. But we also propose that workers should make additional demands: that supposedly unprofitable businesses and industries, instead of be allowed to cut workers’ wages and/or firing workers, should be taken away from the bosses (expropriation) by the state. They should be turned over to the workers and local communities to run democratically. We add that they should not become competitive producers’ cooperatives but should coordinate with each other to create useful products and to improve the environment.

To support workers’ goals, even the most mild reform goals, we support union strikes and boycotts. But we also argue that mass picketing, plant occupations, and general strikes are needed. (And so on.) When and how to say such things depends on circumstances…but they must be said.

This is precisely the issue which divides anarchists and libertarian Marxists into two tendencies, those who believe that revolutionary libertarian socialists should organize themselves into distinct political groups (with clear, revolutionary, programs), and those who want them to dissolve into the broader movement. It is because the program is not simply the sum total of the workers’ demands that a special organization needs to be organized around it. Otherwise, why bother?

A revolutionary approach is a complex interaction of various aspects: objective prediction, moral judgment, necessity, and response to worker’s concerns. Nothing by itself will be enough. Only everything is enough.

References

(1) US-NEFAC (2010). “Nature of the Period; Background and Perspectives”
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16222

(2) Salzman, Lorna (5/3/2010). “An Open Letter and Appeal to Bill McKibbin and 350.org” Advt. The Nation, v. 290, no. 17; p. 19.

(3) Price, Wayne (5/28/2010). http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16212

(4) Price, Wayne (6/1/2009).
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13296

(5) Bookchin, Murray (1980). Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal-Buffalo: Black Rose Books.

Foster, John Bellamy (2000). Marx’s Ecology; Materialism and Nature. NY: Monthly Review Press.

written for http://www.anarkismo.net/

ANARCHIST THEORY:

GRADUALISM AND REVOLUTION:

The previous post brought one of my major themes to mind. The degenerate state of Cuba today is not, in my opinion, just because the change in government was the accession of a new managerial ruling class to power- as Marxist "revolutions" always are. The fact is that the managers have come to power through most of the world by "peaceful" (let's leave their wars aside) means. They rule in western/developed countries today under social democratic and corporate forms, and their rule is much more benign than that of the rulers of Cuba. Why the difference ? Can I suggest that the role of 'revolution" naturally leads to a repressive regime if it succeeds ? Can I also suggest that such a path to anarchism would lead to a similar regime, no matter how the defenders of anarchism might like to deny it ? The history of the Spanish Revolution is instructive in this matter, though the Spanish anarchists never degenerated to the level of the average(every?) communist. But degenerate they did, and they carried the seeds of managerial rule in their syndicates.

So why do I propose a gradual approach to anarchism ? One of the main reasons is the historical record of 'revolutions". The recruitment of 'revolutionaries" in the historical record is actually quite "cleaner" than what many modern-day anarchists propose, being as it basically consists of a core of "failed intellectuals" who think they should have the power to direct the people that they look down upon. The horrifying thing about the pseudo-revolutionaries who often affect the anarchist name-particularly in the USA- is that they abandon even this mendacious goal. They go directly to the so-called "heart of the matter" in their Bakunist illusion that what has traditionally been called the "lumpen-proletariat" is some sort of "revolutionary constituency' or-worse- some bizarre sort of "revolutionary leadership". The whole idea that criminals that undergo a "jail house conversion" to anarchism in the hope of getting letters and donations is exactly as absurd as the far more common jail house conversion to Jesus in hope of getting parole(there is no more solid concentration of "born again Christians" than in maximum security). The intellectual level of the average convicted criminal is slightly below that of a newt, and it is indeed possible that some of these slugs may be under the delusion that there will be an anarchist "revolution" in the next few years that will free them to be predators once more. Can my anarchist comrades wake up ? Not likely !

What can I say about "revolution" ? One of the main things that I can say is that the sort of -people that are necessary to carry a revolution to success (something quite different than what my deluded comrades think today, aside from the fact that more intelligent people would send the "jail-house intellectuals" on as many suicide missions as they could to get rid of them as fast as they could), are not exactly the most desirable people to build a libertarian society- or to live with period. The success of "revolution" depends upon a cadre of hardened psychopaths who will put the ideological goal beyond any mere personal feelings such as "mercy". THAT is what revolution means. THAT is its reality beneath the romance. I personally want no part of it.

The end result of the regime that follows a 'revolution" depends very much upon the ability to kill the revolutionaries. Without such an extermination the regime that would result would be horrific for the population. Who would you trust to carry out such a purge ? The Spanish anarchists did indeed get control of their nuts with only a few executions- yes they happened, no matter how much some might like to deny it; the Spaniards had our own problem in a minor way-.Personally I prefer no executions. Quite frankly I have met no leftist, anarchist or otherwise, in my over 40 years of this game that I would trust to have any better judgement than myself of how to solve this problem. Give me the power of life and death and I'd make some very good choices-I have none of the average leftist illusions-, but eventually I'd be corrupted as well and would have to be killed as well, after I'd made a very good job of cleaning the slate. Call me Robespierre. I'd be totally ruthless in defense of the revolution. I've met non-political people in my life who would be better judges, but I am sure that they would not sign up for such a dirty,filthy,brutal job.

Well, I have a better and more obvious solution.No "revolution". A gradual evolution towards anarchism whereby ordinary, people gradually collectively take control of their lives and eat away at statism and the corporate economy. THIS is Molly's anarchism !

ANARCHIST THEORY:

REVOLUTION, REFORMISM, GRADUALISM- ANOTHER TAKE ON MOLLY'S ANARCHISM:

A comment on a previous entry on this blog asked how the "gradualism" that I hold to differs from "reformism", a presumably "bad thing". The snip answer to such a question would be "not in the tiniest bit" if we lived in an ideal world, but we don't live in such a world. There is actually quite a bit of a difference, given the goals of most reformists-goals that often differ little from so-called "revolutionists"- and I hope I can elucidate the matter further here. To begin I reproduce a piece from the Quebec anarchist paper 'Cause Commune' in which "revolution" is defined as a primary strategic orientation for anarchists. The French original follows below, and my own English translation follows that. I will use this text found at the NEFAC site as a jumping off point for my discussion.

..............................................


L'anarchie de A à Z, «R» comme Révolution
Notre projet politique, l’égalité et la liberté intégrale pour toutes et tous dans toutes les sphère de la vie, est impossible à réaliser dans le cadre social et politique que nous connaissons.





D’abord, certaines profitent de l’injustice institutionalisée et ne céderont pas librement leurs privilèges. Ensuite, la logique interne des systèmes d’oppression et d’exploitation –capitalisme, État, patriarcat—rend toute réforme en profondeur impossible.





Un capitalisme qui n’exploite plus les salariéEs pour accumuler du capital, ce n’est plus le capitalisme. Un État qui ne détient plus le monopole de la violence et qui n’est plus une autorité séparée à laquelle la société doit se soumettre, ce n’est plus l’État. Un patriarcat qui ne hiérarchise plus les genres et qui n’exploite plus les femmes, ce n’est plus le patriarcat. On peut certes faire des gains et arracher des victoires qui rendent le monde un peu plus supportable, mais on ne peut pas éradiquer l’injustice sans changer en profondeur la société. L’émancipation complète exige rien de moins qu’une révolution.



On entend généralement par révolution un changement brusque et radical d’un ordre social et politique. Historiquement, et encore aujourd’hui, la plupart des révolutions ont d’abord été des révolutions politiques et se sont plus ou moins limitées à des changements au niveau de l’État. Comme le changement proposé par les anarchistes va beaucoup plus loin, on parle de révolution sociale.



Nous ne croyons pas au « lendemain du Grand Soir » et nous sommes conscientEs que le changement social est un processus long qui prend racine dans les luttes au jour le jour, ici et maintenant. Ceci dit, cela n’évacue pas la question de la révolution qui est un aboutissement possible des luttes sociales. La révolution, c’est quand le rapport de force bascule dans le camp du peuple et permet le renversement des anciennes structures de domination et leur remplacement par l’autogestion généralisée.


Il y a un fossé entre la situation actuelle et une situation révolutionnaire. Un fossé tellement grand que plusieurs croient qu’une révolution est impossible. Il est évident qu’elle n’est pas à l’ordre du jour dans l’immédiat et qu’elle ne semble pas prète à le devenir dans un avenir prévisible. Là n’est pas la question.



L’enjeu est de savoir comment augmenter notre rapport de force et faire le pont entre le présent et une situation révolutionnaire. Pour notre part, nous proposons une stratégie de radicalisation des luttes et la création de contre-pouvoirs. Il s’agit de favoriser le développement de la conscience et de l’autonomie des mouvements sociaux. Construire les rapports de force pour pouvoir éventuellement passer à l’offensive. Développer l’autogestion et la démocratie directe dans les luttes. Favoriser les alternatives sociales sans se faire d’illusion.

La révolution est une option stratégique, c’est notre horizon politique. Il ne s’agit ni d’un acte de pure volonté, ni d’une formule incantatoire. C’est une perspective politique. Personne ne contrôle le climat social. Souvent, par le passé, alors que la situation semblait irrémédiablement bloquée, le temps s’est accéléré et la révolution est apparue là où personne ne l’attendait. Si ça cela reproduit, serons-nous prêtes?
==Extrait du numéro 19 du journal Cause commune


...................................................
Anarchy A to Z, "R" as in Revolution


Our political project, equality and full freedom for all in every sphere of life, is impossible to achieve in the social and political framework that we know.


First, certain people profit from institutionalized injustice and they will not freely give up their privileges. Then, the internal logic of systems of oppression and exploitation-capitalism, state patriarchy-render any reform profoundly impossible.


A capitalism which no longer exploits workers accumulate capital, this is not capitalism. A State which no longer holds a monopoly on violence and that is no longer a separate authority to which society must submit, is no longer the State. A patriarchy which no longer prioritizes one gender over another and no longer exploits more women, this is no longer patriarchy. One can certainly make gains and snatch victories that make the world a little more bearable, but we can not eradicate injustice in depth without changing society. The full emancipation requires nothing less than a revolution.


It is generally understood that a revolution is a sudden radical change in the social and political order. Historically, and even today, most revolutions were first political revolutions and were more or less limited to changes at the state level. As the change proposed by anarchists
goes much further, we speak of social revolution.


We do not believe in the "day after the Grand Soir" and we are aware that social change is a long process which is rooted in the day to day struggles , here and now. That said, this does not exhaust with the revolution that is a possible outcome of social struggles. The revolution is when the balance of power switches to the camp of the people and allows the overthrow of the old structures of domination and their replacement by gerneralized self management.


There is a gap between the current situation and a revolutionary situation. A gap so great that many believe that a revolution is impossible. Obviously, it is not on the agenda in the immediate future and it does not seem ready to become so in the foreseeable future. That is not the issue.


The challenge is how to increase our relative strengths and to bridge the gap between the present and a revolutionary situation. For our part, we propose a strategy of radicalization of struggles and the creation of counter-powers. It is encouraging the development of consciousness and the autonomy of social movements. Building the power to possibly go on the offensive. Developing self-management and direct democracy in the struggle. Promoting social alternatives without creating illusions.


The revolution is a strategic option, it is our political horizon. It is neither an act of pure will, nor an incantory formula . It is a political perspective. Nobody controls the social climate. Often in the past, when the situation seemed hopelessly blocked, the times have accelerated and the revolution has arisen where nobody expected it.


If it reoccurs, will we ready ?

== Excerpt from number 19 of the journal Common Cause

..........................................


MOLLY ON WHY SHE IS NOT A REVOLUTIONIST


Molly found the above piece, with which she disagrees, a good starting point for this subject which she has discussed before on this blog. It's a good starting point because it is neither stupid, vicious nor insane. A good portion of the justifications for "revolution" are one of the three. Sometimes all three at once, as in the case of the quasi-anarchists called "primitivists". Often the "vicious" and "insane" parts could rightly be described as a variant of stupidity- "emotional stupidity" ie an emotional and ethical immaturity in otherwise intellectually competant people.




But the vast majority of people throughout history who have thought that a revolution is both possible and desirable have not been idiots in any way. I could have cherry picked something from the segment of anarchism that I detest to give such examples of idiocy, but I chose a piece from an anarchist who holds to the traditional revolutionism that has characterized anarchism through most of its history. This traditional view lacks the obvious flakiness of the sort of cults that the USA is so good at producing. It is, however, still very much wrong in modern conditions.





What is the problem with this "revolutionist" view ? First of all let's dispose of the "ruling class will not give up their power willingly" argument. This is brought out in pretty well every single discussion where the speaker/writer is in favour of revolution. It's supposed to be a clinching argument, but it is very far from being so. First of all a gradualist approach assumes no such good will on the part of those who have power. Gradualism, and even many forms of pacifism for that matter, are not synonymous with the non-violent mode of action advocated by people such Ghandi, Tolstoy or Martin Luther King. Such tactics derive from a basic conviction in the goodness of one's opponents, and they fail miserably when such a thing is lacking. They do, however, succeed at times when attempts at violent revolution would be quite ineffective. A gradualist may be just as much convinced of the wickedness of the opposition as the most uncontrollable enragé, but they differ with the revolutionists as to what they see as effective as opposed to ineffective.





That's the whole key to this discussion- effectiveness. Most revolutionists who have contact with reality recognize very well that certain times and places (such as our own) give little prospect of revolution. They say that offering the theory of revolution and organizing as if this theory is correct is more effective than an agnostic view that sees such a theory as useless at best and detrimental at worst.





I personally once believed that revolutions were impossible in modern industrialized countries. The fall of communism in the Eastern Bloc proved me wrong. What happened there was indeed revolution ie a swift change in both the political regime and the economic system. Aside from Romania this revolution was relatively non-violent. The fall of communism, however, illustrates the necessary preconditions for revolution, none of which were the previous planning or organization of the "revolutionaries", and it is useful to review these to show just how difficult revolution in the modern world is.


It has often been stated by those who have examined history close enough that revolutions are very much like natural disasters. The cannot be predicted with any exactitude. They occur only when conditions are right, and despite the protestations of Leninist parties, these conditions do not include some military planning on the part of revolutionists. Revolutions first of all occur when both the rulers and the ruled can no longer go on living in the old way. On the part of the rulers this means that they have encountered a crisis or an impasse where they "lose their nerve", where they become disorganized, divided and ineffective. The old way cannot continue. On the part of the ruled this means that the old conditions of life have become intolerable, and outright rebellion seems like the only solution. The old way cannot continue for them as well. Rebellions that may occur in such circumstances become a revolution when the ruled are infused with a "hope" that says that they can indeed change the conditions of life by rebellion. At this point rebellion becomes revolution. These have often been referred to as the "objective" and the "subjective" conditions of revolution. If either one is missing the revolution fails; it becomes a mere revolt. Both anarchist and Marxist (in its Leninist forms) traditions have often held to the delusion that they can kick-start such revolutions,substituting their own "subjectivity" for that of the majority of the population, either by exemplary actions on the part of the anarchists or by conspiratorial parties on the part of the Marxists. Both are sorely deluded. Revolutions cannot be created. They may be taken advantage of, and it is here that the central point lies.


Most revolutionists who have some common sense agree with the author of the above article in Cause Commune, that the present struggle is absolutely necessary in order to "work towards the revolution". There are those, however, who are much more "purist" than this and who reject every struggle that doesn't have "maximum demands", and who see their only role in such struggles as advocating the overthrow of present society. In the real life world sensible revolutionists and gradualists will generally be in 100% agreement on what to do in the here and now. Revolutionists, however, say that the advocacy of "revolution" in non-revolutionary times and places will somehow "prepare" the people and the militants for the time when a revolution is actually imminant. This opinion ignores what is actually one of the few strong points of the belief in revolution. During revolutionary times old attitudes, practices, habits,deferences, etc. are rudely shattered, and new ways of acting are rapidly built up. Being as revolutionists have had basically no role in the initiation of revolution, and they have generally been as "unprepared" as anyone else for the sudden succession of events during revolutionary times it is no surprise that they are often "outflanked on the left" by the ways in which popular struggle manifests itself at such times. I think that the historical record will show that those who were previously gardualists and those who were previously revolutionists hardly differed at all in previous revolutions as to their willingness and ability to seize the moment. The rapid change of revolution includes an equally rapid adaption of gradualists to the new situation- often a more rapid change because gradualists are not burdened with the sort of rigid ideological timetables that revolutionists are.


One also has to note that sensible revolutionists admit that victories can be won even under present conditions. Their statements that such victories leave the present systems of power intact is correct, but it fails to note that each victory shifts the balance of power such that a given social system may be said to be "more or less" one thing or another. They presume some ideal system of classification whereby a social system is automatically either a or b. Human history doesn't conform to this Manichean dicotomy. Each social system contains remnants of previous social systems and prefigurations of future ones. It is these prefigurations that gradualists hope to build and expand. While not recognizing the rapidly changing attitudes during revolutionary periods that argue against their concept of "preparation" revolutionists also generally refuse to acknowledge the vast number of ways in which the old ways of doing things are preserved once the revolutionary party turns into a hangover. They also generally disparage the new societal forms because they see them as incomplete, even though they are the very basis of the new society.


Here comes the crunch. If one is "revolutionary" enough to believe that new societal forms cannot be gradually built up under present conditions then one has three options. One is the "purist" option, to refuse to support and participate in everyday struggles-except as they are occasions for propaganda for the ultimate goal. Another is to ignore one's theory and lend a helping hand while keeping one's beliefs in "revolution" in a seperate compartment of the mind where they have no influence on one's political actions, sort of the political equivalent of "cafeteria Christianity". The third, and perhaps the most pernicious, is to mistake struggles that can actually gradually lead to the sort of society that the revolutionist wants with each and every struggle that seems to be opposed to the present society. The problem with "reformism" and how it differs from "gradualism" is that it says that there have to be no fundamental changes in the way that society operates, merely technical adjustments, usually carried out by a cadre of "technical adjusters" that divy up some mythical pie more equitably. Gradualism aims to release the power of ordinary people,and each reform that it proposes is aimed at shifting power relations- not at moving power from one ruling class to another. Revolutionists, even unfortunately anarchist ones, often mistake conflicts within a ruling class or between a ruling class and an aspiring new one as something that demands that they take sides. They become reformists because they mistake the "revolution" for the real change proposed by anarchism. Revolution and anarchism are not the same thing,and some of the most disgraceful episodes in anarchist history happened because of this confusion.


This blog has gone on too long, and drawn me away from the things I usually write about here at Molly's Blog. I'll continue the argument in later posts.

WHY I AM NOT A REVOLUTIONIST: PART 1: THE SPANISH CASE:

The Spanish Revolution is a "test case" amongst anarchists. More than the temporary accommodations of the Makhnovists in Russia this is a "real time" survey of how anarchism can exist in the real world. The generally accepted view is that anarchist methods of production and coordination were equal to the demands of a society at war. People may go to the original sources for this matter. What I want to emphasize here is the difference between the ideas of social organization that had been instilled by anarchist propaganda over several decades and the ideas of "revolution" that had been instilled by the same efforts. The "social ideal" was actually separate from the "means of achievement" ie "The Revolution" of myth, but the two tended to be conflated. The Spanish anarchists were confronted with a situation where they represented a large minority in most of Spain and a slight majority in some areas. How should one behave in such situations ? What I would say is that the "intransigent anarchist" policy left the anarchists helpless when they were confronted with the reality of collaboration while the "realist" policy of the 'Treintistas' offered a much more realistic way to play a "political game" with the other parties of the popular front. The "intransigent" factions of the people who had come to control the FAI bowed over to a large extent because they had no idea of "bargaining" which the Treintista section of the CNT very much had- no matter how much they might have been defeated by the FAI.

More on this matter later,

Molly