💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › adam-weaver-building-a-revolutionary-movement.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:48:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Building a Revolutionary Movement Author: Adam Weaver Date: 2004 Language: en Topics: revolutionary anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarchist organization, platformism, Northeastern Anarchist Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/building-a-revolutionary-movement-why-anarcho-communist-organisation/ Notes: Published in The Northeastern Anarchist Issue #9, Summer/Fall 2004.
Over the past few years Anarchist-Communist organizations have been
budding across the globe from South Africa to South America to North
America. Yet few people, even within anarchist and revolutionary
circles, have a good grasp of the beliefs, motivations and purposes
behind this movement. Often times with an emerging movement it is not
until the egg hatches, producing concrete and visible results, that
people begin to give it its name and tell its story.
This article aims to give a brief outline the lessons to be learned from
our revolutionary histories and show the roots from which the current
movement of Anarchist-Communists in North America and worldwide stems
from and further argue the case for this movements vision of a coherent
Anarchist-Communist organization based on a strategic orientation
towards social movements of the working class and oppressed.
While hard to believe now, the ideas of Anarchism once held center stage
in the mass revolutionary movements during the turn of the century on
every continent. Through labor unions, cultural centers, women’s groups
and popular newspapers, the libertarian ideal of a free, horizontal
socialism created by the people inspired millions across the globe.
Anarchism, expressed through revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalism, was
the dominant revolutionary ideology of mass movements in most countries,
while the vast majority of the Marxist current was organized into
reformist social democratic parties that were oriented towards electoral
change, or, “socialism at the ballot box.” Marxist writer Eric Hobsbawm
notes that:
“It became hard to recall that in 1905–14, the Marxist left (sic) had in
most countries been on the fringe of the revolutionary movement, the
main body of Marxists had been identified with a de facto
non-revolutionary social democracy, while the bulk of the revolutionary
left was anarcho-syndicalist, or at least much closer to the ideas and
mood of anarcho-syndicalism than to that of classical Marxism. Marxism
was henceforth after the Russian Revolution identified with actively
revolutionary movements… Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism entered upon
a dramatic and uninterrupted decline.” [1]
But as history has shown in numerous countries, despite the popularity
of anarchist ideas and the high level of involvement and even leadership
of anarchists in the popular struggles of their day, anarchists were not
able to effectively organize themselves during important revolutionary
moments. The loosely knit anarchist movement was not able to develop the
strategic and tactical unity necessary to deal with massive state
repression, moves toward state accommodationism of social movements
(such as advent of the welfare state or government mediation of
workplace struggles) or the rise of Bolshevism. Together these forces
sounded the decline of anarchism and the role of anarchists in mass
movements, along with a number of anarchist militants who were swayed
into the forming Communist Parties of the early 20’s.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 profoundly swayed the orientation of the
global revolutionary movements towards the statist politics of
Marxist-Leninism. Many began to see Russia, under Lenin, Trotsky and
later Stalin’s leadership, as the leading hope of revolution. The new
soviet state opened up training institutes, offered advisors and
contributed financial resources to emerging Communist Parties throughout
the global south, vastly expanding the once small role that Marxism held
throughout the world.[2] This factor of Marxism’s growth has
unfortunately yet to be sufficiently examined and taken into
consideration in looking at the origins of Marxism globally.
By the early 1930’s the majority of the revolutionary movements, with
the great exception of Spain, were strongly influenced if not in the
hands of the Communist Parties. The Communist Parties affiliated with
the Third International, or Comintern, with Stalin at the helm, directed
or created strong poles in the ideology of the oppressed and working
class movements in numerous countries through the popular front strategy
which led to their historic defeat. Where the CP’s were “successful” in
erecting Marx’s idea and Lenin’s model of dictatorship of the
proletariat, the result was dictatorial state capitalist regimes that
oppressed workers, ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples.
Now that the dust has settled on the great struggles of the 20^(th)
century, the weight of Marxist and reformist narratives of history have
buried most of the spectacular history and struggles of anarchists
worldwide. But now as a new epoch of 21^(st) century struggle is
beginning, signs of resurgence are surfacing in response to new crises
and popular movements are again bursting forth with new examples of
popular rebellion and organization. In this climate a few dedicated
individuals have begun to brush off the dust and bring these stories of
Anarchism and popular movements to light again.
We are standing at a moment of historic juncture, a moment that promises
to bring ever more frightening realities. Yet, with this frightening
reality comes the opportunity for new movements to resist imposed social
crises and reshape society in a new image. Following the Cold War and
the collapse of the communist ‘alternative’, the US was left as the sole
world superpower. It has now begun to enact, through treaty or tank, the
globalization of hyper-exploitative capitalism and US hegemony into
every corner of the world. Globally the economy is in shambles.
Following Asia’s economic crises, a typhoon has carried across the
pacific, hitting South America. Now reaching America, millions are
jobless or being squeezed into the low wage service and retail sector,
while the economy is floated by massive military spending and an
accompanying national debt. Further, the extremist leadership of
President Bush has expanded America’s agenda to one of empire building
through neocolonial militarism abroad and US protectionism at home,
putting the US into potential conflict with other emerging powers such
as the EU and China. Important reforms of previous struggles such as
welfare, social security, accessible public education and affirmative
action are being slashed or nearly eliminated.
The years ahead will likely see a growth in massive social movements
challenging these crises of unemployment, war, public services, economic
restructuring and concurrent repression and serious anarchists will be
challenged to put their beliefs into practice and turn these coming
rebellions into international social revolution. Already we can some of
this in new Anarchist-Communist organizations that have formed and in
the syndicalist unions in Europe and the US that are reviving out of
dormancy.
This requires not only a new analysis of our current world and the
realities of the oppressed and working classes, but a strategy of how
the revolutionary forces will act as catalysts towards social
revolution, which inevitably leads to the question of how these forces
will organize themselves as a vehicle to implement and undertake this
strategy.
Traditionally the movement of Anarchist-Communism within anarchism has
defined itself by fighting for a positive vision of social revolution.
They have avoided the pitfalls of moving into reformist mutualism and
while involved in the social movements, rejected “pure”
anarcho-syndicalism that denied any necessity for separate anarchist
organization. Within the FAI of Spain, the Makhnovistas of the Ukraine,
the PLM of Mexico and the anarchist federations of South America,
Anarchist-Communism represents the leading ideological force of these
social revolutionaries.
While classic Anarchist-Communist beliefs were built on the simple
theorem of, “From each according to their ability, to each according to
their needs,” the new emerging movement of Anarchist-Communists is
expanding their framework of analysis. While Anarchism offers timeless
principles, much of its political, social and organizational theory is
outdated and thus serious anarchists have begun the process of
historical revision and reexamining concepts of race, gender, social
oppression, nationalism and imperialism.
Based on these historical conclusions and assessment of the current
situation emerges the rising Anarchist-Communist movement within
anarchism based around two central themes: 1) the organization of
militants into a coherent federation and 2) the interaction and active
participation of anarchists within the social movements. While these
ideas have only recently come into North American Anarchism, they are
historically rooted in the anarchist movement and have formed
independently in different countries. For example the same concept was
called “organizational dualism” in the Italian anarchist movement of the
20’s and a similar concept has emerged in the South American anarchist
movement they call “especifismo.” [3]
Today’s current borrows loosely from the Platformist current in the
belief of rejecting an anarchist catch-all federation combining
different tendencies within Anarchism, called a “synthesis federation,”
and instead advocating an organization based on common ideological
belief. This type of federation interacts in ideas with the broader
anarchist movement and may work with similar minded anarchists, but does
not seek to speak for, represent or recruit the whole anarchist
movement.
In the ‘Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists,’ document
written by Nestor Makhno and the Dielo Trouda (Workers Cause) group
after the Russian Revolution, the term coined to describe their proposal
for anarchist federation is one based on “theoretical and tactical
unity.” This does not mean having a rigid, all encompassing ideological
hegemony within the organization (as many Marxist-Leninist and
especially Maoist parties do), but rather the organization brings its
members together to develop a common strategy towards building a
revolutionary movement. This important strategizing work can only occur
in an organization with a high degree of trust, commitment and political
unity. Theoretical and tactical unity is not something imposed, but is
an ideal that is always strived towards and developed out of a process
of critical thinking, strategizing, action and evaluation. It is a
concept born out of necessity as revolutionaries realize that a
successful revolution requires a strategy along with dedicated work. Of
course the way particular groups implement a strategy may be different
because of local circumstances and different approaches.
This process of developing a revolutionary strategy and ideological
discussion within the organization allows the members and groups who
make up the federation to constantly be engaging themselves in the
process of revolutionary theory and practice. Then, by taking their
discussions, reflections and conclusions into media forms, such as the
federation publication, it creates more discussion and influence within
the larger revolutionary and social movements. Further, the federation
can act as a historical well of experience for new militants brought
into the movement and allow the members to hold themselves accountable
to the mistakes they make.
Based on the analysis and strategy of the organization, day-to-day work
is focused around working within broader social movements. While social
movements are broadly defined as movements of affected groups of people
brought together for social change, the social movements that
Anarchist-Communists specifically refer to are movements of oppressed
people that seek not only social change, but a breaking down of existing
structures and oppression. They must have the potential to counter pose
oppressed people’s own collective power and vision (also called dual
power). The movements should be horizontal, participant led and
democratic in structure as much as possible. They should be oriented
towards direct action and more importantly create the type of conditions
that transform the participants into self-conscious thinkers and
organizers amongst their peers. The classic example of social movements
is radical labor organizing, but contemporary examples could also be
working class student and community organizing.
The Brazilian FAG (Federação Anarquista Gaúcha or Gaucha Anarchist
Federation) describes their view on anarchists involvement in social
movements:
“On the political-ideological level (political groups, including the
FAG) should enhance the social and popular movements, but without trying
to make it “anarchist”, more militant. The social movements should not
have a political ideology, the role should be to unite and not belong to
a political party. In social movements it is possible to unite militants
and build a unified base, which is not possible in an ideological
level.” [4]
This is radically different from the work that most of the US left is
engaged in, of cyclical activist work which lacks strategy and is
divorced from everyday experience and relevance to oppressed and working
class people. Most of this work amounts to issue based advocacy by small
groups of political activists that orient themselves to other political
activists. The Anarchist-Communist vision of social movements is also
different to those movements that while seemingly popular and seemingly
based on struggles of oppressed and working class people, are leadership
orchestrated, top-down movements where participants are passive actors
of their own fate or where a movements true function is acting as a
conveyor belt of electoral or party politics. Unfortunately too many
anarchists find themselves plowing every garden but their own and doing
this very type of work.
The role of the Anarchist-Communists is not to wrestle the leadership of
movements into their hands, which assumes a presumptuous leadership of
the masses or vanguardist role, but to work as a catalyst of ideas and
action within. Like baking soda to vinegar, a catalyst works to create a
reaction when it interacts with something else. Anarchist-Communists
would play key roles as active participants, helping push the social
movements forward in organization, strength and militancy. They would
also work to maintain the popular character by arguing against electoral
politics, their accompanying party organizations and vanguardist
elements.
Just as history is putting everyday people into the line of fire, it is
forcing them to step up to the plate to resist the attacks of
capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy. But these attacks and the
growing resistance are neither isolated events, but are all elements of
historical forces at work. These forces are also calling forth the
ideals inspired by anarchism and Anarchist-Communism: that of a society
reshaped in the image of a popular, horizontal socialism created by the
people. As revolutionaries our moment is now and we cannot afford, nor
can all of our people and communities, to abdicate our responsibility
and ignore the lessons of our histories. We must accept this challenge
by coherently organizing ourselves and putting our ideal into practice
of mass, popular and militant social movements that will have the power
to bring about the social revolution.
[1] As quoted by Arif Dirlik, Anarchism and the Chinese Revolution
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 2
[2] Citing just a few examples of China, Vietnam and Cuba: John King
Fairbank, The Great Chinese Revolution (San Francisco: Harper Perenial,
1987), 208, 212 William J. Duiker, Ho Chi Minh, A Life (NY, Hyperion:
2000), 89 Frank Fernandez Cuban Anarchism (Tuscon, AZ: See Sharp Press,
2001), 55
[3] The Global Influence of Platformism Today (Johannesburg, South
Africa: Zabalaza Books, 2003), pg. 24 (Interview with Italian
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici for Organizational Dualism),
[4] ibid, pg. 50 (Interview with Brazilian Federação Anarquista Gaúcha
for especifismo)