💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › jacobian-engaging-with-the-class.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:14:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Engaging with the Class Author: Jacobian Date: October 14, 2009 Language: en Topics: class struggle, platformism, especifismo Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/blog/engaging-with-the-class/
One of the deep insights of anarchist theory is that means and ends are
inseparable. The method of struggle will have important repercussions on
the realisable ends. The development of Anarchist theory and practice
has been a search for liberatory methods that are likely to create the
society that we hope to see. The role of the organisation then has to
fall in line with those tactics and strategies that are liable to bring
about a libertarian society.
“The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists” [1]
(Abbreviated: The Platform) was first written after the failure of the
revolution in Russia and the Ukraine. An attempt was made to give
solutions to those factors in the struggle which had lead to failure.
In 1936, a syndicalist revolution was attempted in Spain. This attempt
also failed. The Friends of Durutti Group [2] formed in 1937 in an
attempt to guard the ideological purity of anarchism, and to advocate
against the regimentation of the military. This initiative however, came
too late, after the argument had already been lost.
Again, starting in 1956, we see the emergence of the FAU [3], also in
rough agreement with the guidelines given by the Platform though likely
developed quite independently. Later we see the FARJ [4] express a
slightly more nuanced understanding of how the anarchist organisation
should function in relation to the mass movement. This understanding was
born out of the practice in working with various social groups,
including the unions and students.
None of these initiatives were ultimately successful. However, the
notion of Platformism, the Anarchist Vanguard group [5] [6] and
Especifismo [7] have seen growing interest in recent years. This
interest grows out of repeated failure by anarchists to gain traction
since the failed revolution of ’36 and a look at the (qualified)
successes of the Especifismo approach.
In order to have a libertarian revolution, the manner in which the power
of the state is dispensed with is essential. The “seizure of the state”,
as Leninist groups approach the problem, simply replaces one form of
rule with another. In order to change the structures of power
fundamentally, from the base, it is necessary to have a social
revolution.
Specifism is an hypothesis. One which has not fully been tested or seen
unqualified success. This hypothesis however is rooted in experience, of
both success and failure, gained in real struggles. Since the working
class is at such a disadvantage, we have not seen any unqualified
successes, and therefore those techniques that look promising must be
evaluated with a combination of theoretical probing and active attempts
at implementation.
The hypothesis is that anarchists should organise into specific
political organisations with the intention of promoting the development
and radicalisation of elements in those sectors of society which can
represent the interests of the working class. These sectors might
include the unions, students, unemployed, community groups or anywhere
else that strategic and tactical analysis would point towards as a
promising sector.
This interaction with particular sectors, which we will call social
engagement[8] involves the active participation of militants in these
mass organisations and sectors in ways that will advance the class. The
basic rule of thumb for determining advancement is summed up in the
following maxim “anarchists should actively promote the increasing
participation and power of the working class”. That is, we would like to
see self-actualisation, self-organisation and the building of
prefigurative libertarian structures. This rule of thumb, however, is
insufficient. We must attempt to express the libertarian worldview
simultaneously. This can happen in the ideological vacuum that is a
consequence of struggle, when the illegitimacy of the common sense
notions that we inherit from capitalist society are exposed.
We need to be bold in widening the division in thinking as the working
class begin to see the bankruptcy of ruling class ideas.
Political revolution is the revolution of heroes, the revolution of a
minority. Social revolution is the revolution of the common people, a
revolution of the great masses. – Liu Shifu
Social engagement is an alternative to both the substitutionism of Lenin
and Guevara, and its tacit rejection so often characterised by those who
define themselves in opposition to Leninism in the anarchist milieu and
the ultra-left. While not all Leninist or Guevarist tactics are
substitutive, they tend to have no critique of the practice. If the
revolutionary vanguard, the active or militant classes or the guerrilla
armies substitute themselves for the working class then there is no
libertarian revolution.
This is true because the elements who substitute can not know the aims
of the working class. In the subjective sense, this class can’t even be
said to exist in the absence of the realisation of their own position in
society. In the absence of their own consciousness of existence, they
can’t have any collective sense of needs. Their needs would then have to
be assessed by a group that did not include them, but was outside them.
Liberty is about the capacity to make choices. Any revolution in which
decisions are made in ones stead, or on ones behalf, is not libertarian.
Neither can this substitutive element increase working class
participation by acting in its stead. This participation is a crucial
ingredient towards the creation of a new society run by the working
class, for the working class. A substitutive group will eventually
develop its own class interests.
History has born out this lesson with impressive regularity including
the great “communist” revolutions of Russia and China. In the end, both
Russia and China devolved into oligarchic capitalism as the substituted
revolutionaries relaxed naturally into their position as the new ruling
class.
The negation of the Leninist programme, which was embraced by the
ultra-left and later by many groups including the Forest-Johnson
tendency, and various anarchist and other libertarian communist groups,
is now widely accepted in the libertarian left. This negation views
Leninism’s direct active participation in struggle as so dangerous that
any sort of activity is in danger of being substitutive. Interaction
bears a threat of infection. In this atmosphere most libertarian groups
have become either closed or interact only through propaganda,
attempting to enlighten the class, but not to guide them.
Social engagement however asks for a third path; interaction for the
realisable gain of libertarian advantage. This means that anarchists
would actively take part in organisations and communities attempting to
build class power. They would argue in their unions for progressive
politics and revolutionary goals. Pushing beyond arguments for improved
conditions towards the complete removal of capitalism. They would argue
in their schools for open access to education. They would argue in their
communities to for common ownership of resources and services. All of
this would be done by including and assisting cooperatively with the
class.
[1] The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, Dielo
Truda (Workers’ Cause)
[2] The Friends of Durutti Group: 1937–1939, Agustin Guillamón
[3] The FAU’s Huerta Grande
[4] Interview with the Rio de Janeiro Anarchist Federation (FARJ)
[5] The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism, Georges Fontenis
[6] The Friends of Durutti Group: 1937–1939, Agustin Guillamón
[7] Especifismo, NEFAC
[8] This has sometimes been called Social Insertion by South American
comrades