I don’t think it’s as simple as it seems.

Why do primitivists attach themselves like barnacles to the anarchist ship and not the liberals?

Besides the fact that liberals would shoo them off, I think the anarchist legacy needs to be examined.

For one: anarchism broke from liberalism later than Marxism did. I know it sounds crazy, but Marx and Engels made a clear break with classical liberal ideas early on in the life of the First International, while anarchist figures such as Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin tended to cling to them.

It sounds crazy, I’m sure, to bring this back to the 19th Century – but the angle of trajectory means a lot in the long run.

Among the issues which divided Marx and Engels from those figures was the extent to which French and Russian revolutionaries tended to have a certain nostalgism for rural life before capitalism. A great part of why the Manifesto goes into how capitalism was progressive in that it undid the prior social orders (by removing the halo from professions, by disintegrating social relations, etc.) is that the anarchists of the era had insisted that certain pre-capitalist aspects of social life, most especially in rural areas, could and should be preserved. Marx and Engels, who saw what capitalism had done to rural populations in Germany and England, begged to differ (and were, I believe, correct).

That strain of thought translated into rural communism (the idea that the farmers could, on their own, skip capitalism and socialism altogether, and form communist society), and has led – almost spontaneously – to “back to nature” movements, which tends to be side-by-side with more liberal “back to nature” movements.

Russia saw this in the 19th century, with the Narodniks – urban revolutionaries who went to the countryside to live among serfs, teach them how to rebel, etc. They failed, but the pre-eminent Russian liberal Lev Tolstoy ended up continuing this milieu through the popularity of his writing (which, among other things, gave inspiration to Gandhi’s idea of nonviolence).

In the United States you see the same pattern spontaneously emerge with folks like Zerzan springing up around the same time as the whole organic foods/back to nature liberalism came on the scene (IIRC, late 1990s).

So, trying not to use an overly large brush to paint anarchism and anarchists, the issue goes deeper than just white dreadlocked dudes who choose to smell like butt. It goes into the praxis of anarchism which still tends to believe that “nature” and the “natural” are inherently good, and its being bound up in classical liberalism which holds the same core belief.

As I believe Marx and Engels already settled a long time ago, the definition of “nature” and what is “natural” shifts all the time – always in the service of the ruling class. The point is for the broad masses to do that defining for themselves.

not hatin, just sayin

The EZLN needs a long awaited critical summation.

So to unpack this a bit, why is a general “critique of bureaucracy” a complete failure? It must begin pretty simply that it no longer inhabits the realm of a political critique, but rather inhabits the space of natural intuition. Everyone and his grandma has something to say about bureaucrats, even political bureaucrats have something to say about it!

So what’s the hump we have to get over? What’s wrong with this “critique?” Just an example, the failure of Orwell’s 1984 and Terry Gilliam’s Brazil is that it presents bureaucracy as essentially self-perpetuating living organisms outside politics altogether, outside a reason for its self-perpetuation. This is ultimately phantasmal, what really Marx calls “false consciousness” and I think it’s not hard here for somebody to take this framework of thought and then begin seeing the conspiracies of the world. Big Brother is the Rothschilds! Big Brother is the Illuminati! As we might think Lacan to say to an Orwell, “there is no big Brother!”

Of course I in no way think the Situationist article is as foolish as to accept the notion of world conspiracy (though unfortunately so many do!). I still think the logic exists there, but in the different form of a repetition of what I would call a vulgar and mechanical Marxism which analyzes functionally according to certain historical rules and dogmas it has established for itself. In fact, this article really reads no different to me than Trotsky’s criticisms; they appear to me to be one of the same – it repeats notions such as the 1927 Revolution was crushed (no it was really doomed to failure from the beginning despite what Uncle Joe did), that the failure of the People’s Republic of China was that it was based on a “militarily disciplined peasant” uprising rather than “workers’ revolution;” all of this actually quite superficial application of 19th century categories that really Maoists and other revolutionaries like Fanon, Cabral, and others had to ditch in order to turn Marxism into a category of revolutionary consciousness and not just “instinctual drive” of the supposed “workers” (I would even say that today, this category and use of speech is altogether irrelevant).

If Maoists ditched the corpse of Histomat to make revolution, I believe Anarchists should too! We need to analyze the particularities of political struggle, their immanent structures of thought and projection, and not give faith to mere sociological-psychological constructs – the ultimate end of what is a type of workerism that still exists in the Trotskyist movement and the Anarchist movements. It is my position that we ultimately lead to a dead letter sort of language, the ruling class, the working class, this or that strata become homogenous. That’s simply never been the case, and is not the case today! The hegemonic discourse for more than a century in this country has been the reining ideas of the Ideology of our inherited system. It coordinates our very lives, gives us our very dreams and fantasies, and even our own identities. A vanguard is thus decisively real always because of the political consciousness that people like ourselves have and when others don’t.

That maybe gets us into our Zapatistas. It is interesting to note that many of Love & Rage members ultimately moved out from L&R Network with the decisive understanding that Anarchism suffers from “theoretical poverty,” some even became Maoists! So what is the worth of the Zapatistas in all this? I’ve talked to former members of the L&R who have told me that their visits and studying of Chiapas turned their thinking on many important issues – organization, the State, consciousness, etc. Why is that? Because the Zapatistas effectively run a State! They have an army structure which hasn’t changed since the 80s’; Marcos has been in decisive command even when the EZLN was part of the FLN & even after they split (a split that occurred because Marcos pushed the subject of armed struggle). Going into 1994, EZLN had not changed their position on overthrowing state power and taking state power for them, this position changed when they were effectively DEFEATED militarily by the Mexican Army.

EZLN collects taxes, builds infrastructure, imprisons people, refuses some people to enter their communities, and try’s to lead community councils.

To note on EZLN’s apparent change from Maoism to their current incarnation, it’s important to note that I doubt seriously Marcos, the FLN, and the EZLN were ever fully “Maoist.” It seems they interestingly mixed Maoism with Foco Thought of Che in the very beginning (the reason there never was a party, but only an armed revolutionary army). Foco Theory is just honestly bankrupt, and yes I even criticize that, Maoists have for a long time too! People’s War in the Maoists understanding can’t be waged solely by an armed guerilla band with no deep ties in the people, it must work amongst them, learn from their lives, put forward revolutionary thought and theory in conjunction with their experiences – that is what Maoists have called Mass Line. If Marcos was surprised he couldn’t just be a “vanguard” but actually had to learn, well then he wasn’t much of a Maoist – though he may have been a good scholar on Althusser, so I hear.

Getting back into Maoism then, I think then you, the article, and maybe even the EZLN have missed altogether the importance of a “revolution within a revolution” and the importance of Mao’s thoughts on methods of leadership and practice. Mao Zedong and revolutionary communists within the CPC waged a bitter struggle with the centrist & right-wing components of their Party all through the Cultural Revolution, and this political struggle was carry forward in every day life in battles between different squads of Red Guards, Worker Organizations, and Peasants. It wasn’t ever simply “one faction of the ruling class vs. another.” That just negates the seriously revolutionary aspects of this struggle embodied in the history, slogans, and art of this period.

While it may not be useful to get too bogged down in history, from my perspective, radical social critique requires knowledge of both the past and the present. Regarding the nature of Marxist regimes, while, by definition, all states are to some degree ‘authoritarian’, such regimes have been highly ‘authoritarian’, even ‘fascist’. Hence their occasional designation as ‘Red fascist’. Further, from an anarchist perspective, the distinction you make between, on the one hand, “the conservative, revisionist, and non-revolutionary character of Khruschev’s Soviet Union” (et al), and, on the other hand, Mao’s “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” is a false one. On this subject, see ‘The Explosion Point of Ideology in China’, Internationale Situationniste #11 (Paris, October 1967), trans. Ken Knabb:

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.China.htm

Regarding uncritical assessments of the history of anarchism, I agree: history, including that of anarchism, should be read critically. But I take that as read. Further, it’s obvious that we do not live in a classless, non-hierarchical, global society; that is, previous attempts at constructing such a society have failed. That too, I take as read. The question which faces revolutionaries — by which I mean those committed to such a project — is how, and why? (That is assuming, of course, that such a project is even possible.)

A simple rendering of the history of anarchist movements would be that they ‘tried’, and ‘failed’. But history is a lot more complicated, and the history of the relationship between anarchism and Marxism is a case in point. Leaving aside the conflicts which emerged in the late nineteenth century, if one examines the initial actions of the Bolshevik state, for example, one finds bloody repression, not only of the anarchists, but of all other political tendencies unable and/or unwilling to subordinate themselves to the party/state. In addition, one finds an assault upon the organs of workers’ self-management — all in the name of a ‘Soviet’ state. (See, for example, Maurice Brinton’s ‘The Bolsheviks and Workers Control, 1917 – 1921: The State and Counter-revolution’.) Similar processes and dynamics have attended upon every other Marxist/Leninist regime. At the same time, this should not obscure the existence of other, libertarian trends within Marxism, encapsulated most recently, perhaps, in the concept of ‘autonomist’ or ‘open’ Marxism.

Finally, regarding the EZLN, one point: in an interview conducted with Marcos in 1994, and published in the US anarchist newspaper ‘Love and Rage’ (iirc), he commented that his initial approach, and that of his comrades, was modelled on the approach adopted by previous insurgent groups. That is, a classically Marxist/Leninist/Maoist formula. His (and their) experiences transformed his (and their) approach, into one which was dependent — or so he claimed — on ‘listening’, not ‘commanding’. It was only via this approach that the EZLN was able to form, and embed itself within the indigenous communities of Chiapas. Of course, a great deal has happened since January 1, 1994, but that’s another, still-ongoing, story…

Cheers and beers,

@ndy.

While it may not be useful to get too bogged down in history, from my perspective, radical social critique requires knowledge of both the past and the present. Regarding the nature of Marxist regimes, while, by definition, all states are to some degree ‘authoritarian’, such regimes have been highly ‘authoritarian’, even ‘fascist’. Hence their occasional designation as ‘Red fascist’. Further, from an anarchist perspective, the distinction you make between, on the one hand, “the conservative, revisionist, and non-revolutionary character of Khruschev’s Soviet Union” (et al), and, on the other hand, Mao’s “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” is a false one. On this subject, see ‘The Explosion Point of
Ideology in China’, Internationale Situationniste #11 (Paris, October 1967), trans. Ken Knabb:

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.China.htm

Regarding uncritical assessments of the history of anarchism, I agree: history, including that of anarchism, should be read critically. But I take that as read. Further, it’s obvious that we do not live in a classless, non-hierarchical, global society; that is, previous attempts at constructing such a society have failed. That too, I take as read. The question which faces revolutionaries — by which I mean those committed to such a project — is how, and why? (That is assuming, of course, that such a project is even possible.)

A simple rendering of the history of anarchist movements would be that they ‘tried’, and ‘failed’. But history is a lot more complicated, and the history of the relationship between anarchism and Marxism is a case in point. Leaving aside the conflicts which emerged in the late nineteenth century, if one examines the initial actions of the Bolshevik state, for example, one finds bloody repression, not only of the anarchists, but of all other political tendencies unable and/or unwilling to subordinate themselves to the party/state. In addition, one finds an assault upon the organs of workers’ self-management — all in the name of a ‘Soviet’ state. (See, for example, Maurice Brinton’s ‘The Bolsheviks and Workers Control, 1917 – 1921: The State and Counter-revolution’.) Similar processes and dynamics have attended upon every other Marxist/Leninist regime. At the same time, this should not obscure the existence of other, libertarian trends within Marxism, encapsulated most recently, perhaps, in the concept of ‘autonomist’ or ‘open’ Marxism.

Finally, regarding the EZLN, one point: in an interview conducted with Marcos in 1994, and published in the US anarchist newspaper ‘Love and Rage’ (iirc), he commented that his initial approach, and that of his comrades, was modelled on the approach adopted by previous insurgent groups. That is, a classically Marxist/Leninist/Maoist formula. His (and their) experiences transformed his (and their) approach, into one which was dependent — or so he claimed — on ‘listening’, not ‘commanding’. It was only via this approach that the EZLN was able to form, and embed itself within the indigenous communities of Chiapas. Of course, a great deal has happened since January 1, 1994, but that’s another, still-ongoing, story…

Cheers and beers,

@ndy.

I think we have to get down here to the political differences as they are and not go into historical revisionism. Lets be clear on some segments of history, often so-called Marxist parties have been authoritarian and even what I would call Fascist (lets just look at Eastern Europe or China today); there were however indeed trajectories which led Maoists and other revolutionary Marxist-Leninists to reject the conservative, revisionist, and non-revolutionary character of Khruschev’s Soviet Union and other states which were content to protect “actually existing socialism.”

In fact, the history of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution shows how Mao and other revolutionaries within the Chinese Communist Party challenged the bureaucratic-conservative core of that Party, and saw how this core would lead to the Capitalist Restoration model embodied by Deng Xiaoping. I think even as a matter of interest, the embodiment of the political slogans of “Bombard the Headquarters,” “One divides into Two,” and the experiements in models led by the Shanghai Commune are of great importance.

If you speak to most people today either leaving the RCP (that Avakian Cult) or in FRSO/OSCL, you get a new sense from these Maoists that we need to examine the history of “actually existing socialism,” sum up the lessons of the Cultural Revolution, and re-envision making revolution and transforming all oppressive social relations.

But don’t Anarchists have the same thing on their hands? Can you be uncritically accepting of the last two centuries of failed attempts toward developing these centers of ‘participatory democracy’ and without being crushed by the state? I would agree with you that the relationship of Marxist-Leninists toward Anarchists that can at the very least be said to be “problematic,” but the history of Anarchist struggle is ridden with the same striking sectarianism, inability to identify real problems, and inability to transform the consciousness of the masses.

Today, only the Zapatistas emerge as the main movement to which my friends point to as a source of inspiration and to learn from. But to ask a simple question, can the “horozontalism” of the Zapatistas communities emerge without the Verticalism of an unchanged military command led by Marcos since the 80s’? The same of Durruti and Makhno. Could it be a real “horozontalism” if it didn’t involve dealing with the contradictions amongst the people, including issues such as forced marriages?

I think this is one of the important things that is forgotten by people about the EZLN, they’re still dealing with reactionary attitudes amongst their communities, they still have a type of State-power (they imprison people for example in jails).

But more importantly, Dual-power (a term derived from Lenin) can only emerge with an organized use of force, the very concept of Dual-power means there are two competing organized forces, and one has to die for the other to survive. I think people in their mythologies of all Anarchist experiments forget this fact, Anarchists were crushed by States, organized forces with central power.

For myself the concepts of Mass Line and Lenin’s “What is to be Done?” still are relevant to our understanding of what is needed to really tranform the world, and not get so caught up in our own self-cultivations of types of democratic form that we lose sense of that. To put it another way – Are we fighting for our beautiful souls, our little niches of power (whether that be in my college at CUNY or at my community board) or Liberation of humanity? I think the two can be combined, but often we lose sight of the latter.

So maybe a little provoking comment – lets take Power seriously again if we really think “Another World is Possible,” or else we’re just settling for this one with a happier face.

As an APOCer who builds & organizes with & w/o APOCers (including white anarchists & maoists of color) I feel compelled to add to this discussion the main ideaological and historical beefs APOCers and anarchists in general would have with Maoists and other top down & vanguard Marxists. #1: throuugh out history anarchists have been betrayed, persecuted and murdered by those in control of the state;too often including Marxists. #2: Anarchists have as a main principle the rejection of a state and all other hiearchical institutions and modes of organizing. Marxists might go sof far as to believe in Marx’s concept of the communist state ‘withering away’ but so far no state in human history has dissolved itself. Basically anarchism has participatory democracy as a goal and as the mode of achieving it. Marxists believe they can reach participatory democracy by first being lead by a specific section of the people to a centralized democracy, and often fueled by capitalism (usually some centralized form).

The question is, are the neo-marxists-leninist-maoists for participatory democracy from start through finish, or will they eventually kill those who are?

PS. I love several (neo)Maoists and Daniel is one of them.

I figure the “Yes, APOC is Maoist” post is the bloggy equivalent of a “nuh-uh” to the red-baiting people are always slinging APOC’s way. I mean, satirizing stuff that’s thrown at you is a good way to shrug it off–but you’re right, it doesn’t do much to broaden the way we address ideological borders, sectarianism or debate/dialogue.

To me, the meat-and-potatoes that we should be thinking about is this: the level of discourse and discussion in APOC, in anarchist circles, and in U.S. radical social movement as a whole has got to get a lot more dynamic, robust and exploratory FAST. Otherwise we risk letting another neoliberal decade grind by while we’re too busy denouncing each other in the terminology of forty years ago.