💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › larry-gambone-principled-bakuninism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:03:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Principled Bakuninism Author: Larry Gambone Date: January 5, 2010 Language: en Topics: Mikhail Bakunin, platformism, especifismo Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15401
When looking for new Latin American Anarchist groups, I happened to find
a document I think is of importance. “El Anarquismo Revolucionario:
origen, evolucion y vigencia...” was written by a Mexican anarchist
group called Organizacion Popular Anarquista Revolucionaria (OPAR) [1].
They subscribe to “Principled Bakuninism” (Bakuninismo Principista) The
following is a brief examination of this tendency. (My Spanish is not
the best, my apologies to OPAR if I am misrepresenting them in some
way.)
Bakunin developed revolutionary anarchism from the proto-anarchism of
Proudhon. Key elements of Bakunin’s anarchism were the need to implant
oneself in the popular movements and the organization of the
revolutionary minority. This latter entailed the formation of a tight,
well organized, international revolutionary organization. The goal of
the revolution was to abolish capitalism and the state and introduce
what we today call Popular Power. The goal of the revolutionary
organization was to encourage the mass movements in that direction.
Bakunin’s “vanguard” was not authoritarian. It did not boss the worker
organizations. Nor was the vanguard to rule once the revolution was
made. It was simply composed of the most advanced people and lead by
example and persuasion, not coercion.
After Bakunin’s death, his followers, Cafiero, Kropotkin and Malatesta
tried to continue the revolutionary anarchist tendency. But in doing so,
they ignored those two key aspects of Bakunin’s revolutionary praxis —
involvement with the masses and the revolutionary organization. Instead,
they proposed the formation of loose affinity groups. They also sought
to encourage attacks against the authorities; the ill-fated tactic known
as “propaganda of the deed.” Their “revisionism” served only to distance
revolutionary anarchism from the peasants and workers, marked anarchists
as terrorists and chaotic people (to this very day) and bury the concept
of the revolutionary organization. These errors allowed the Social
Democrats to go unchallenged and to build powerful organizations that
would then deflect the population away from revolution.
It was soon evident that propaganda of the deed was a disaster and
within less than a decade, most anarchists had re-entered the labour
movement. This new movement was anarcho-syndicalism and gave rise to
many working class militants. While anarchist ideas now had a mass
appeal, one thing was missing. This was the concept of the revoltionary
organization. The lack of this revolutionary minority would prove fatal
in 1936 when the CNT-AIT leaders betrayed the Spanish Revolution by
joining the government rather than destroying it and instituting Popular
Power.
By the time of the Great War, anarchism was split three ways. One group
favoured an educational and cultural approach, the second were the
syndicalists and the third were the synthesists. This latter group
sought to unite all anarchist tendencies in one umbrella group. None of
these tendencies followed Bakunin’s concept of revolutionary
organization.
There were a number of groups and individuals, who, in some manner, did
follow in Bakunin’s footsteps. These included the Magon Brothers, the
Mahknovischina, (and the “Platform”) the Friends of Durruti, the FAU
(Uruguayan anarchists) and George Fontenis. Contemporary groups are
criticized. The present AIT and the groups it influences like
Venezuala’s “El Libertario”, are condemned as ultra sectarians and a
“rightist revision” of anarchism. Surprisingly enough, they don’t care
much for the Neo-platformist or “Especifist” tendencies either, which
are denounced for “eclecticism”.
From here on, I will attempt to give my evaluation of OPAR’s analysis.
The Propaganda of the Deed period has always seemed bizarre to me, a
kind of death wish or momentary madness. No contemporary anarchist that
I know of supports the tactic, for then or for now, yet there is not a
great deal of explanation as to why it happened. (A lot of embarrassed
silence though!) What explanations are available relate the tactic to
the crushing of the Commune and the resulting Europe-wide repression.
But this is only a partial explanation.
Bakunin’s “vanguardism” along with that of the Magon Brothers, has been
seen by many, if not most, anarchists as an abberation — an
“unanarchist” aspect of these otherwise great anarchists. (Sort of like
the contradiction of Proudhon’s anarchism and his antisemitism.) But
what if the concept of revolutionary organization isn’t in contradiction
with anarchism, but a key missing aspect of it?
We all know that Marx’s followers tossed core elements of his theories
aside and replaced them with a vulgarized, truncated version that became
known as “Orthodox Marxism.” We also know that Marx’s thought suffered
at the hands of his followers, not so much out of visciousness on their
part, but out of ignorance. Could it be that anarchism suffered a
similar fate?
The vast majority of social anarchists today are in favour of
involvement in the mass organizations, or their creation where they
don’t already exist. But once the populace is in motion, the syndicalist
unions, worker and neighborhood councils formed, then what? History has
shown us in graphic and bloody detail how the mass organizations can
bring us to revolution, but then stop and go no further. From the
experience of history, it would seem that a revolutionary minority is
needed to encourage that final push, leading to the destruction of the
state, the institution of Popular Power and the suppression of reaction.
I do not believe that the “correct program” is a panacea. You can have
the best program ever divised, but if conditions are not right, you will
remain a minority on the sidelines. But when conditions are right, when
the population is in revolt and the question of power is about to be
broached, this program and the militants to follow it, can make a
crucial difference between success and failure.
Where I part company with the OPAR comrades, is the manner in which they
present their case, and their attitude toward other anarchists, rather
than the overall analysis itself. I doubt whether Kropotkin or Malatesta
deliberately and maliciously chose to revize Bakunin’s anarchism. They
were seized by the error of ultra-leftism, something not unknown among
young militants. They made a mistake, albeit a very serious one. Having
made mistakes all my life, and being totally sincere each time I do, and
noticing that all my comrades have done the same and are just as
sincere, I cannot come down too hard on Kropotkin and Malatesta.
Furthermore, after they came to their senses they did as much as anyone
ever has to spread the message of anarchism. (a truncated version of
anarchism from a Bakuninist perspective.)
While I agree that some AIT groups, or the friends thereof, are
sectarian, I think OPAR is a bit guilty of it too. It is a poor tactic
to insult the people you are trying to win over. Calling those you
disagree with “revisionists”, “petty bourgeois”, declaring that so and
so really isn’t an anarchist, only serve to create hostility, diverting
people from the real issues at hand. The correct tactic when trying to
bring new ideas to a group or to engage in constructive criticism, is to
first bring people together on what they have in common. How would I do
it? “All social anarchists want to abolish the state and capitalism, all
believe in direct action, direct democracy, mutual aid, federalism. But
we are not doing our best to enact that program, and the reason why, is
that we are missing something very important. What is missing is
Bakunin’s concept of revolutionary organization...”
Nor is the diversity of anarchism such a bad thing. Today’s working
population is very diverse in its makeup and what appeals to one sector
might not to another. Our diversity can, and sometimes does, mirror that
complexity. The important aspect of this is that all anarchists work
together on common projects. Not everyone will want to belong to the
revolutionary organization and may even be opposed to the idea of having
one, but if they are willing to work together in the mass organizations
or common fronts, what is the problem?
Neo-Platformist “eclecticism” ? Not sure what that means. What I do know
is lack of sectarianism and the willingness to work with others is what
has made Neo-platformism appealing to me. The old Platformism was
sectarian and did much damage to the general anarchist movement, thus
making Synthesist Anarchism seem like the voice of reason. The new
Platformism, by working with others and not condemning them for
doctrinal crimes, has taken what is best about Synthesism — the common
ground approach — but adding what is lacking — a separate coherent
revolutionary organization. Just after studying the OPAR document I came
across an article by the Federazioni dei Comunisti Anarchici —
undoubtedly one of those “eclecticists” — entitled “The Communist
Origins of Anarchism.”[2] It closely parallels what OPAR has written
about the fate of post-Bakunin anarchism. What then are the differences
between the new platformists and the Principled Bakuninists?
In summing up, while the OPAR document has a somewhat flawed
presentation, it nevertheless is a valuable contribution to anarchist
thought. It has certainly made me re-evaluate both the history of
anarchism and the organization question.
[1]
/
[2]