💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › wayne-price-the-limits-of-hegemony.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:50:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Limits of Hegemony
Author: Wayne Price
Date: December 03, 2017
Language: en
Topics: hegemony, book review
Source: http://anarkismo.net/article/30699

Wayne Price

The Limits of Hegemony

This is an important and interesting book about how to build a movement.

From the blurbs it includes, it has been highly praised by many

well-known militants and theorists of change. In my opinion, as a

libertarian (antiauthoritarian) socialist, it has something profoundly

true to say, but it is politically unbalanced.

We live in a time when awful things are happening, politically,

economically, socially, militarily, and ecologically—and worse things

threaten to happen. Yet, as Jonathan Smucker points out (relying on the

polls), “Today in the United States more millennials identify with

socialism than with capitalism….On nearly every major issue, relatively

progressive positions have come to enjoy a majority of support….The

establishment is in crisis. Popular opinion is on our side.” (2017;

252—254) Why then are those committed to social justice so weak,

marginalized, and with minimal political impact? What can be done to

change that? That is the important topic addressed by this book.

Smucker’s message is essentially this: too much of the Left is

inward-looking, comfortable with itself, and self-involved. It is

correct, even essential, to have a core group of reliable militants, but

leftists must reach out to others, go beyond their comfort zone, and get

other people involved, to whatever degree they can be involved. It is

not enough to build a club of the like-minded. It is necessary to work

out a strategy for winning gains, for influencing others, for

achievement, and for exercising power. It is necessary to build a

movement, a movement for power. The strategic aim should be to challenge

the dominance (the “hegemony”) of the ruling elite over popular

consciousness and established institutions—and to ultimately replace its

hegemony with that of the Left.

That is the book in a nutshell. He repeats the message over and over, to

drive it home, with various elaborations and modifications. This message

is true and important but not especially new. For decades, revolutionary

Marxist and anarchist organizations have urged their members to go

beyond middle class intellectuals and students, to root themselves in

the working class—particularly in the most oppressed and

discriminated-against sectors of the working class (African-Americans,

unskilled workers, women, etc.). This was essential for building an

effective revolutionary movement.

For example, in the ‘70s, Hal Draper criticized sects which postured as

small mass parties: “The life-principle of a revolutionary mass party is

not simply its Full Program, which can be copied with nothing but an

activist typewriter and can be expanded or contracted like an accordion.

Its life-principle is its integral involvement as a part of the

working-class movement, its immersion in the class struggle not by a

Central Committee decision but because it lives there.” (quoted in Krul

2011)

Prefiguration vs. Strategy

The problem of the self-enclosed and isolated grouping, then, applies in

many forms on the Left. It applies to small revolutionary socialist

organizations, built around their dogmas and their newspapers. It

applies to co-op stores and bicycle clubs. But Smucker is especially

aiming his criticism at anarchists, based on his experience in the

Occupy Wall Street encampment in 2011. (Which is also consistent with my

own—much more limited—experience with OWS.) He describes the anarchists

as focused on building a self-governing collectivity, which would

inspire people to go and do likewise. They did not, he claims, think of

OWS in strategic terms, about how to use it as a basis for building a

broader movement to challenge established politics. They vehemently

opposed raising demands on the state, which would have been necessary if

the movement was to attract others. He counterposes the anarchist

emphasis on “prefigurative” organizing to his focus on “strategic”

thinking.

“In contrast to power politics, ‘prefigurative politics’ seeks to

demonstrate the ‘better world’ it envisions for the future in the

actions it takes today….I argue that even leftist idealists have to

strategically engage power politics proper, if they hope to build

anything bigger than a radical clubhouse.” (103) Smucker cites major

anarchist theorists, “Manuel Castells, Richard J.F. Day, and David

Graeber seem to concur with my claim that [prefigurative politics] aims

to replace…strategic politics, especially if the later is defined in

terms of hegemonic contestation.” (127)

For example, David Graeber has written, “… most successful forms of

popular resistance have historically taken the form not of challenging

power head on, but of ‘slipping away from its grasp’, whether by means

of flight, desertion, or the founding of new communities.” (quoted in

Price 2016) Laurence Davis summarizes—favorably—this viewpoint, “For

contemporary ‘small-a’ anarchists…these here-and-now alternative

institutions…and social relationships …are the essence of

anarchism….Many contemporary anarchists insist that ‘the revolution is

now’….” (same) Some autonomous Marxists have adopted a similar

perspective, calling it “exodus”—somehow escaping from capitalism

without confronting it or the state.

I have written several essays critical of this view (Price 2015a; 2015b;

2006). Most of Smucker’s criticism is on the mark. The capitalist class

with its institutions of power—especially the state—will not allow the

people to gradually and peacefully build alternate institutions which

could replace the market, industrial capitalism, and the national state.

This was demonstrated (once again) when the police broke up Occupy

encampments, after a few months. This was done throughout the country,

with coordination by the (Obama-Democratic) national government. The

power of the state could not be ignored.

But the opinions he cites are from only one school of anarchism. There

is also the tradition of revolutionary class-struggle anarchism

(libertarian socialism). (Price 2016; 2009) This aims to build a mass

movement which can eventually overthrow the capitalist class and its

state, along with all other institutions of oppression—and replace them

with self-managed, cooperative, nonprofit, institutions from below. It

sees a major role for the working class, with its potential power to

stop the means of production. It also has organized other sections of

the oppressed and exploited to fight for freedom, in various countries

and at various times.

Smucker, who claims to have once been an anarchist, appears to be

completely ignorant of this alternate, and mainstream, tendency in

anarchism, which goes back to Bakunin and Kropotkin, the

anarchist-communists and the anarcho-syndicalists. (A slight example of

Smucker’s ignorance of anarchism appears in his discussion of recent

biological evidence that human beings, like other animals, are not only

competitive and aggressive, but also are highly cooperative and

sociable. This is true, but it was demonstrated over a century ago by

Peter Kropotkin in his Mutual Aid, a foundational work for anarchism.)

Revolutionary anarchism would not accept this binary counterposition of

prefiguration vs. a strategy for power—whether raised, on different

sides, by Smucker or by certain anarchists. Even Smucker accepts that a

strategic approach may incorporate prefiguration, as a minor aspect. But

actually the two depend on each other. We cannot build a participatory

democratic society unless we build a participatory democratic movement,

and it will be a stronger movement the more that people democratically

participate.

This point is made in a book on unions, fittingly titled, Democracy is

Power. “Internal democracy is key to union power….A union will act in

the interests of members only if these members control the union….The

power of the union lies in the participation of its members, and it

requires democracy to make members want to be involved….A union run by

the members is also more likely to exercise its power.” (Parker &

Gruelle 1999; 14) This does not mean that specific forms, such as

consensus and open membership, are always required. However, strategy

and prefiguration should be one and the same.

The Limits of Liberalism

The primary weakness of this book is its one-sided focus on sectarian

withdrawal and self-involvement on the Left. What Smucker says against

this is true, but it is not the whole truth.

The main problem with the Left in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is not

self-involvement but liberalism, reformism, and opportunism. From the

‘30s to today, most of the Left has supported—or at least,

accommodated—capitalism, only urging better regulation of business by

the state. It has promoted the state as the main remedy for all social

evils—if only the state would be somewhat more democratic. It has

portrayed the state as a neutral institution, to be used by the

corporate rich or by the working people, depending on events. It has

urged a focus on elections, to put individuals into office to be

“political” for the people. It has channeled mass action into the

Democratic Party, the “party of the people,” which has consistently been

the swamp in which movements suffocate and die. This has been true not

only of liberals but also of most of those calling themselves

“socialists” or “communists.”

The liberal approach has led to victories, but none which have remained

stable and reliable (especially since the period of renewed stagnation

and decline beginning about 1970, following the “long boom”). Unions won

the right to organize—but today unions in the private sector only

represent about 6 % of the labor force, about where they were before the

upsurge of the ‘30s. African-Americans defeated legal segregation, but

Black people are still on the bottom of society. Even their right to

vote is under attack. Women made gains, which are again under attack,

especially the right to legal abortions. The “Vietnam syndrome,” which

limited the U.S.’s military interventions abroad, is over; now the U.S.

wages war around the world, and threatens nuclear war with North Korea.

Advancements in environmental protection have been viciously attacked by

the current administration—which has attacked popular gains in every

field. (Readers may add to the list as they chose.)

Liberalism—reformism—has been a failure overall.

Yet this seems to be Jonathan Smucker’s perspective. While he strongly

(and correctly) criticizes self-enclosed, sectarian, anarchists and

others, he has barely a few phrases about the danger of being coopted by

ruling powers. He hopes to build a broad popular movement, including

large numbers of “ordinary people,” workers of all sorts, students, and

oppressed people—but also to include powerful people from the rich and

governing sectors. He wants to win over “allies within the existing

establishment.” (167) Radicals need to know “how to strategically

influence a decision-maker….” (250) There is a need for “actively

courting influential supporters….” (70) This implies not an alliance

against the ruling class but an alliance with sections of the ruling

class and the state. (This has traditionally been called a “Popular

Front,” as opposed to a broad alliance of organizations, parties, and

movements of the working class and oppressed sections, which has been

called a “United Front.”) In order to include establishment allies, the

movement would have to limit the demands which can be raised and the

methods which can be used.

Smucker’s aim is not only for a popular movement to develop

counter-power to the ruling class, but to take state power. “The state

is no longer an other that we stand in opposition to as total outsiders;

instead we become responsible for it—parts of it, at least….” (152) His

goal is “to consolidate victories in the state….wresting the helm.”

(150) He expresses admiration for “the Chavistas in Venezuela…[who] have

succeeded in winning some level—however limited a degree—of state

power….” (136) Smucker does not mention more recent developments in

Venezuela, which have not gone so well for the regime nor for its

working and poor people.

Elections and the Democratic Party

To win “victories in the state”, it will be necessary to run in

elections. “Hopefully this moment is helping today’s radicals to

reconsider our relationship to electoral campaigns and political

parties….” (170) Besides the Chavistas, he makes several glowing

references to Bernie Sanders’ campaign. “In 2016 Bernie Sanders picked

up the torch that Occupy lit….” (246) “The Bernie Sanders campaign

showed again…the ripe possibility of such an insurgent political

alignment.” (217) The Sanders campaign did demonstrate that there was a

lot of dissatisfaction which might be mobilized even behind someone who

was called a “socialist” and spoke of “revolution.” This was

significant.

But what was the strategic result? Sanders channeled this

dissatisfaction into the Democratic Party, eventually behind Hillary

Clinton, a neoliberal, militarist, establishment politician. Those who

organized the Sanders campaign are now trying to keep its momentum in

the capitalist party which has historically been the graveyard of

movements. They want to turn the militant youth into voting fodder for

another pro-imperialist, pro-capitalist, candidate, who has no solution

for the economic and ecological disasters which are looming.

Smuckers cites a lot of sociologists and political scientists, but few

radicals. He cites no anarchists (except for the non-revolutionary

types) and no Marxists (except for the Italian Communist Antonio

Gramsci--died in 1937). He never considers the nature of the state,

apparently treating it as a neutral institution which can be used by

either the people or by the corporate rich. He seems to think that

competing classes can take over different “parts” of the same

state—denying that it is a unitary institution. One thing on which both

the revolutionary anarchists and Lenin agreed was that the existing

state was an instrument of capitalism, and that it needed to be

overthrown and replaced by alternate institutions. The fate of the

Occupy encampments was one demonstration of this.

Other examples have appeared more recently in Greece in the fate of the

elected Syriza government, in Brazil with the Workers’ Party government,

in South Africa with the ANC, and in many other reformist parties over

the decades (such as Allende in Chile in 1973 or the rise of fascism in

Europe in the 1920s and 30s). Smucker discusses the OWS experience but

not any of these. Nor does he examine any of the rich history of

revolutions and counterrevolutions, which have been studied by

anarchists, Marxists, and bourgeois historians. It is true that we

cannot expect a revolution—or even a prerevolutionary period—in the near

future. But the goal of a revolution can be used to guide the current

struggle for reforms and how that is carried out. A study of the history

of previous attempts at revolution could provide lessons even broader

than only looking at OWS and the other limited experiences which Smucker

has personally gone through.

In fact, limiting ourselves just to struggles for reforms, in the U.S.

almost every major victory has been won by non-electoral means. The

rights of unions were won through mass strike waves. The destruction of

legal Jim Crow and other gains for African-Americans were won through

mass civil disobedience as well as urban rebellions (“riots”). The war

in Vietnam was opposed through demonstrations, draft resistance, campus

strikes, and a virtual mutiny in the armed forces. LGBT rights were

fought for through the Stonewall rebellion and ACT-UP’s civil

disobedience. The women’s movement was an integral part of these

non-electoral struggles. The legal and electoral aspects of these

movements were efforts by the establishment to respond to these popular

struggles, to get them under control, and finally to kill them. The

Democratic Party played a big part in that.

The Hegemony of Gramsci

Smucker relies heavily on the concepts of Antonio Gramsci, such as

“hegemony”, “articulation,” and others. Without being a Gramsci

enthusiast, I do not criticize Smucker for being willing to learn from a

Marxist theorist. (Although it seems a little odd to use an unusual word

like “hegemony” in the title of a book addressed to a wide audience.)

Gramsci advocated a revolution by the working class, in a broad alliance

with all oppressed and exploited people, to overturn capitalism and the

existing state. These are concepts with which I agree and which Smucker

may not, or at least does not raise here. However, even the best

Marxists should be read critically, given the disastrous results

whenever Marxists have taken power.

For example, the concept of “hegemony,” as used by Gramsci, indicates

that the capitalist class rules through dominating popular culture and

ideology—and that the working class and oppressed need to reverse this,

so that emancipatory culture and ideology becomes the “common sense” of

the popular classes.

However, “hegemony” might also be interpreted with authoritarian

implications, implying that a minority which thinks it knows the Truth

should seek to dominate popular consciousness. In fact, Gramsci was a

Leninist, an advocate of a centralized vanguard party. The party, in his

conception, aimed to take power through a new state, presumably in the

interests of the working class. In the factional conflicts within the

Communist International and the Italian Communist Party, Gramsci took

the side of Stalin (Chiaradia 2013).

“Hegemony” may also be interpreted as a reformist strategy. If we focus

predominantly on the cultural and ideological power of the ruling class,

this may lead to downplaying its economic power (the use of unemployment

and insecurity to discipline the working class) and the armed power of

its state. The police and military do not usually interfere directly in

politics, but they are always in the background, to be used in a crisis

(again: as in the destruction of the Occupy encampments). This can lead

militants to emphasize political maneuvering and cultural enlightenment,

and to ignore hard power, confrontation, and the nature of the state. In

fact, after World War II, the Italian Communist Party, as well as later

“Eurocommunist” parties, followed reformist strategies while claiming to

be inspired by Gramsci.

None of this should prevent people from learning whatever they can from

Gramsci’s work. (See Anderson 1977.) But they should view it critically.

Hope for the Future

Jonathan Smucker expects continuing difficulties and crises in society

to create openings for popular movements, in various ways and on various

issues. “A left hegemonic project will become a realistic possibility in

the decades ahead.” (255) “The signs are all around us that such a

progressive populist alignment is coming into being.” (247) I think this

perspective is likely. I also agree with Smucker that radicals need to

prepare for this, to think about how to cope with the growing

discontent, and to organize ourselves as part of organizing others. The

self-organizing of radicals is part of the self-organizing of popular

movements.

However, he ignores some of the dangers involved. Liberals, reformists,

and those establishment allies Smucker wants to look for, will aim to

keep the “populist” movements within respectable and limited bounds—that

is, to keep them ineffective. Revolutionary anarchists and other

libertarian socialists need to build a militant, radical, left wing of

the movements (especially the labor movement with its potential

strategic power). They need to oppose (to seek hegemony over) those who

withdraw into self-satisfied isolation, but also to oppose those who are

willing to accept the limitations of capitalism and its state.

In the front of this book, his anarchist publishers, the AK Press

Collective, have a statement. Probably referring to his electoralism and

similar aspects of his strategy, they write, “Smucker’s personal

politics sometimes include strategies for social change that AK Press

doesn’t advocate, but we think the ideas he presents will be useful to a

range of strategic approaches….”

As did AK Press, I find this a useful and interesting book. It raises

insightful criticisms of some anarchists and others. It proposes

programmatic suggestions, some of which I think are valuable from a

revolutionary view— and some of which I think are wrong (reformist) but

worth thinking through as he presents them.

References

Anderson, Perry (1977). “The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci.” New Left

Review. http://www.praxisphilosophie.de/anderson_gramsci_antinomies.pdf

Chiaradia, John (2013). “Amadeo Bordiga and the Myth of Antonio

Gramsci.”

https://libcom.org/library/amadeo-bordiga-myth-antonio-gramsci-john-chiaradia

Krul, Matthijs (2011). “What We Can Learn From Hal Draper.”

http://mccaine.org/2011/04/14/what-we-can-learn-from-hal-draper/

Parker, Mike, & Gruelle, Martha (1999). Democracy is Power; Rebuilding

Unions for the Bottom Up. Detroit: A Labor Notes Book.

Price, Wayne (2016). “In Defense of Revolutionary Class-Struggle

Anarchism.” Anarkismo. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/29243

Price, Wayne (2015a). “Response to Crimethinc’s ‘Why We Don’t Make

Demands’.” Anarkismo. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/28353

Price, Wayne (2015b). “The Reversed Revolutions of David Graeber: Review

of David Graeber, Revolutions in Reverse.” Anarkismo.

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28134

Price, Wayne (2009). “The Two Main Trends in Anarchism.” Anarkismo

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536

Price, Wayne (2006). “Confronting the Question of Power; Should the

Oppressed Take Power?” Anarkismo.

http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2496

Smucker, Jonathan M. (2017). Hegemony How-To: A Roadmap for Radicals.

Chico CA: AK Press. </biblio>