💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-argentina-and-the-left.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:23:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Argentina and the left
Author: Anarcho
Date: 2003
Language: en
Topics: Argentina, autonomist, leftism
Source: Retrieved on 3rd August 2020 from https://web.archive.org/web/20071003070204/http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/argentina/left.html

Anarcho

Argentina and the left

Anarchists have long argued that the working class, in its struggle

against oppression, organises itself and creates combative bodies which

can not only fight hierarchy but can become the framework of a free

society. In “From Riot to Revolution” I discussed this in regards to the

current social conflict in Argentina.

Unsurprisingly enough, the developments in Argentina have been analysed

by the various shades of the left. The results are illuminating,

shedding a light on the way Leninism views working class struggle and

the role of the vanguard party. Simply put, their attempts to analyse

the events in Argentina exposes the substitutionist nature of

vanguardism. Facing a working class which is applying direct

self-management, they do not know where to turn. Moreover, there is a

tendency for the analysis to concentrate on the roots of the crisis as a

result of impersonal economic forces (i.e., from the perspective of

capital to use Harry Cleaver’s useful term) and to discuss the struggle

of working class people as almost a side issues, something which gets in

the way of hard economic statistics.

This can be best seen from the SWP’s International Socialism Journal

(no. 94) in which Chris Harman covers the new organs of working class

power in just over pages, of which one is analysis (namely page 25). His

comments are insightful, but purely in terms of the mentality of

Leninism. Basically, his discussion on the working class revolt is

disapproving. While recognising that the popular assemblies in the

neighbourhood were developed by the people due to the “need to organise

themselves,” he complains that the Argentine working class is organising

in the wrong way! There are, Harman informs us, “important differences”

between the way Argentineans are actually organising and the way they

should be, namely in “workers’ councils” or soviets. The popular

assemblies are not “anchored” in the workplace, not an “organic

expression” of the Argentinean working class and its militant history!

[1]

Need it be said that such an SWP approved organisation will

automatically exclude the unemployed, housewives, the elderly, children

and other working class people who are currently taking part in the

struggle? In addition, any capitalist crisis is marked by rising

unemployment, firms closing and so on. While workplaces must and have

been seized by their workers, it is a law of revolutions that the

economic disruption they cause results in increased unemployment simply

because supply lines are disrupted (in this Kropotkin’s arguments in

Conquest of Bread have been confirmed time and time again). That the

Argentine working class is forming organs of power which are not totally

dependent on the workplace is, therefore, a good sign. As discussed in

“From Riot to Revolution”, factory assemblies and federations must be

formed but as a complement to, rather than as a replacement of, the

community assemblies.

Harman argues that these bodies are cross class organisations, with

assemblies being formed in well off neighbourhoods as well as working

class ones. It seems strange that a socialist, who claims to believe

that the working class can transform society, is so concerned about the

influence of a few assemblies which include a minority of the

population. It also seems strange that a supporter of the ultimate

“cross class” organisation, a political party, should condemn the

Argentineans so!

Self-Management or Representation?

Even worse, these popular assemblies are “not yet bodies of delegates”

and do not have “an organic connection with some people whom they

represent.” Their members “represent themselves”! Which, of course, is

the whole point — they are popular assemblies! A Popular Assembly does

not “represent” anyone because its members govern themselves, i.e. are

directly democratic. As Harman explicitly states that they are “closer

to the sections” of the French Revolution, it is clear he is talking

about the elemental neighbourhood assemblies and is simply showing that

he does not know what he is talking about.

What is significant from Harman’s disapproval is his need for

“representative” structures. This is understandable as without

“representatives” it would be impossible for the vanguard party to seize

power! After all, did Lenin not argue that “the dictatorship of the

proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the

whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only

over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so

divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts ... that an organisation

taking in the whole proletariat cannot direct exercise proletarian

dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard”? (Lenin, Collected

Works, vol. 32, p. 21) As we can see, the fate of the revolution depends

on the masses creating a organisation in which someone “represents”

them. Without this delegation of power away from the working class into

the hands of a few, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” would be

impossible!

Equally, the logic of his argument defeats Harman. While he argues that

any “delegate” should be subject to recall, he insists on stating they

must “represent” some body. Yet, for recall to work the “some people”

must be in a position to judge the actions of their delegate. This means

that without self-management, recall is impossible. Thus, if we have

recall (and that also implies mandates), we implicitly have the

structure for self-management and so not representation. Simply put,

whoever is competent enough to pick their masters is competent to govern

themselves and whoever is able to recall their “representative” is able

to mandate them. With mandates, representatives are replaced with

delegates.

To confuse representation with direct democracy makes sense for an

ideology which also confuses party power with working class power. For

anarchists, Harman’s confused terminology simply shows that Leninism

aims for the former, not the latter (as Lenin made clear). Perhaps

Harman’s confusion and bewilderment at the activities of the Argentine

working class simply reflects an awareness, however dim, that if they

continue to organise in this manner, the “vanguard” party will not be

able to seize power?

Completing the Revolution?

Workers Power contributed their analysis via a “Statement of the

International Secretariat of the LRCI” entitled The Argentine Revolution

has begun — how can it be completed?

Unsurprisingly enough, like Harman this statement calls for “Soviet-type

bodies” to be created. Indeed, the “slogan for workers councils is

crucial one in the current situation” and is counterpoised to “the

slogan of popular assemblies or similar multi-class bodies” and the

latter “actually runs the danger of leaving the workers open to other

class forces and populist demagogues.” Thus the focus of the struggle is

turned away from direct democracy onto leaders, away from what is

actually happening in Argentina and on to what Trotskyists think should

be happening.

Needless to say, this is all done in order to “root fighting organs

strongly in the working class, in the factories and shops.” However, as

unemployment is high and not all working class people are wage slaves,

it does not mean increasing the “social weight of the working class in

the movement” but rather disempowers vast numbers of our class. That is

not all. The statement is much more generous and aims at disempowering

all working class people. This can be seen from the comment that

workers’ councils are seen as “a means to help the workers test their

current leaderships at all levels, to reject and replace the inadequate

ones and chose new ones.” Thus the “slogan for workers councils” is

simply a means of ensuring the “right” (i.e. Trotskyist) leaders have

power and not as a means of ensuring workers’ power at all (I’m sure

that, like Lenin, Workers Power will equate the two).

Thus the whole rationale of the statement is to replace popular power

with party power. As they put it, while “many bodies may arise which

have rather the character of popular assemblies or mass meetings” this

is not enough. “Revolutionaries,” they state, “have to work in these

bodies and help them to develop a recallable and responsible executive

or leadership body.” Thus the working class do not govern society

directly, the “leadership body” does. [2]

Obviously, it is “essential that delegates which are responsible and

recallable to the rank and file are elected in the workplaces, the

departments, but also in the districts and by the unemployed

associations.” Equally, for the need to co-operate and co-ordinate

struggles and activity. However, these developments should be rooted in

the popular assemblies, not raised as an alternative to them!

Constituent or Popular Assembly?

After attacking the popular assemblies for being “multi-class bodies”

the statement argues without irony that the call for a “sovereign,

revolutionary, constituent assembly” remains “an important slogan in the

present situation.” In other words, “multi-class” direct democracy is

bad but “multi-class” representative democracy is good! Thus

representative democracy is seen as the form of proletarian power while

direct democracy is associated with the “middles classes” — a reversal

of the events of every bourgeois and proletarian revolution and the

utter betrayal of the latter. [3]

It warns us that “the middle classes” have “disproportionate” influence

in the assemblies (“at least in Buenos Aires”). They claim that the

“blue-collar worker are largely absent from these bodies.” While the

“popular assemblies ... represent the growing political involvement of

the masses” they “must not be confused with workers councils — soviets.”

That only a part of “the masses” can take part in “workers’ councils” is

simply ignored. They then compound this error by actually arguing that

the “agitation for the constituent assembly alone will not solve the

question of the present preponderance of the middle classes, the

unemployed and the urban poor in the struggle”! Thus the “working class”

is identified with industrial workers, a minority within our class.

As I warned in the last issue of “From Riot to revolution”, the left

would do the bourgeoisie’s work for them and support attempts to side

track the revolt into legal and representative forms. The statement does

not disappoint, arguing for the assembly as “the organised working class

... have not entered the political scene in an organised fashion.”

Moreover, they even imply that the lack of this constituent assembly has

resulted in the popular assemblies being formed! Thus “politics” becomes

equated with electing politicians — preferably “revolutionary” ones to a

“revolutionary” assembly. As if sticking “revolutionary” in front of

something changes its nature!

Needless to say, the call for a “constituent assembly” is not an end in

itself. This is just the “first task in this period” in order “to

overcome the absence of the working class from the centre of the

struggle against Duhalde.” It would be churlish to ask the authors how

many of “the masses” who have fought and struggled in this near

revolution are, in fact, “working class” and how many are “middle

class.” Simply put, if it was predominately the “middle class” which was

taking part in the struggle, Trotskyists would not be remotely

interested in it...

Party Power, not workers’ power...

But hope does exist! The statement argues that the “positions of the

Partido de los Trabahadores por el Socialismo (PTS), advanced in the

present crisis are qualitatively superior to those of the other

organisations claiming to be Trotskyist in Argentina and entitle them to

the active support of revolutionaries world wide.” They praise the PTS

for “correctly rais[ing] the slogan of a sovereign constituent assembly

over which the working people should exercise the maximum control

through democratic mass organisations.” Forgetting their attacks on the

popular assemblies, they point to the PTS and its attempts “to promote

the building and extension of workplace and popular assemblies and

committees of elected and recallable delegates. They have also argued

for a workers government based on such bodies — in particular upon a

national workers and popular assembly.” This, it is claimed, is contains

the “fundamental elements of a revolutionary strategy for the Argentine

revolution.”

But why a “workers government” above the popular assemblies and their

federations? After all, if the working class is managing society

directly in mass assemblies then what role would the government play?

The statement is clear:

“If revolutionaries are striving with the utmost seriousness and

determination for working class power — i.e. for the dictatorship of the

proletariat — then BOTH soviets and a revolutionary party are absolutely

essential. SOVIETS ARE NOT ENOUGH because without a revolutionary party

they will be incorporated and/or dissolved. The party is the essential

means for achieving power.”

Thus, in order for “working class power” to exist, the party must be

given power! Needless to say, the soviets in Bolshevik Russia quickly

became “incorporated” — into mere fig-leaves for party rule. Moreover, a

few months after power the “revolutionary party” had “dissolved” any

soviet which had been elected with a non-Bolshevik majority. The logic

for all this is simple. If the party “is the essential means for

achieving power” and the party is rejected by the working class in

soviet elections then, logically, the working class is no longer in

power and so the party has the right, nay the duty, to dissolve any

soviet to maintain “soviet” power. After all, by definition all other

sections of the working class are “backward” in relation to the

vanguard, so providing the perfect rationale for turning the

“dictatorship of the proletariat” into the “dictatorship over the

proletariat.”

They state that the “central focus of agitation and propaganda” has to

reach the “conclusion” that “our struggles have to be combined and

co-ordinated on a national level, we need centralised councils of the

workers, the unemployed etc.; we need a workers government based on

these organs of struggle. Such a government must carry through to

completion a proletarian revolution.” Thus the need to federate together

to co-ordinate struggle is confused with centralisation and the

usurpation of popular power by the leaders of a party. Ironically, the

“completion” of a “proletarian revolution” means that the proletariat no

longer make the decisions. Instead, the role of proletarian

organisations are to be the base upon which a handful of party leaders

take power. Truly “workers’ power” in practice!

It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to!

Given the legacy of “revolutionary parties” substituting themselves for

the working class, you would expect that the healthy distrust expressed

in Argentina for politicians has also been applied to would-be

“revolutionary” ones. The statement asserts that “social dominance of

the middle classes meant that their ideological impetus was quite

strong” and their “political prejudices” has “led to them resisting the

carrying of banners by political organisations (left parties). It has

also led to opposition to open participation by left parties in the

popular assemblies.” [4]

Being good Trotskyists, they predict that “Anarchist confusionists will

doubtless celebrate this ‘anti-political’ stance.” They explain why

“revolutionaries [sic!] must consciously and openly fight against it” by

presenting the super-market version of revolutionary politics: “A de

facto ‘ban on parties’ denies the masses the opportunity to compare them

and their programmes, to accept or reject them.” Thus “the masses” get

to choose between pre-existing “programmes” rather than determine their

own needs and desires (with the input of revolutionaries in open

assembly). Rather than manage their own affairs directly, the masses get

to put their “weight” behind one party or the other, just as in

bourgeois democracy. As the Bolshevik revolution shows, such forms of

“popular democracy” simply replace popular power with party power.

Ultimately, the statement confuses “freedom and duty of parties to

organise” (which they claim “is the bedrock of workers and popular

democracy”) with the freedom of parties to dominate and control the

popular movement, a confusion which we must be aware of. Simply put, all

individuals and groups must have freedom to organise and influence

popular organisations but they must not be allowed to substitute their

will for that of the assemblies. [5]

Shades of 1905?

Perhaps we should not be too surprised by the unresponsiveness of

Leninism to new developments in the class struggle. After all, while

anarchists had been supporting the idea of workers’ councils as a means

fighting the class struggle and as the framework of a free society since

the 1860s, Bolshevism only came to pay lip service to this idea in 1917!

Given that anarchists have been discussing the possibilities of

community assemblies in a similar light for decades now [6], perhaps a

similar process is now at work?

Let us not forget that while, almost uniquely on the left, the

anarchists in 1905 had supported the soviets as organs of struggle and

as the framework of the new society [7], neither Marxist groupings

(Mensheviks or Bolsheviks) viewed them as anything but the former.

Indeed, the Bolsheviks were so hostile to the soviets they actually

presented the soviets with an ultimate: accept our political platform or

disband! Luckily, they were ignored.

Ultimately, the Leninist dismissal of the popular assemblies suggests

more than merely confusion or unconscious awareness they imply no means

for the party to seize power. It suggests that the sectarian core of

Leninism is being exposed. Sectarians expect working class people to

relate to their predetermined political positions, whereas

revolutionaries apply our politics to the conditions we face as members

of the working class. For Leninists revolutionary consciousness is not

generated by working class self-activity, but is embodied in the party.

As such, when working class people organise in new ways, the response is

not to integrate and learn from these new experiences but rather to

complain they are organising in the wrong way. As Marx defined it: “The

sect seeks its point of honour not in what it has in common with the

class movement, but in the particular shibboleth distinguishing it from

that movement.” Hence the fetish for “workers’ councils,” the harking

back to 1917 Russia and the expectation that working class people’s role

in the revolution is to select the correct “leadership” and “programme”

from a competing set of would-be bosses.

In conclusion

Our look at the approach of two left parties to the revolt in Argentina

indicates well the sectarian and elitist nature of Bolshevism. Rather

than embrace the popular assemblies and seek their growth, argue for

their extension into the workplace, clarify their aims and urge that

they and their federations alone become the future structure of a

socialist society, we are subjected to repeated complaints that the

Argentinean working class is just not doing what they should be doing.

Rather than look at the concrete dynamics of the struggle in Argentina,

we are urged to apply “soviets” as if it was still 1917 Russia. We are

told to base the revolution on industrial workers, so marginalising the

rest of our class from the revolutionary struggle (moreover, such a

position fails to appreciate the disruptive effects of any revolution

which has a tendency to increase unemployment).

The reason for this is simple. Like Lenin, they want party power, which

they equate with working class power. When the working class acts in

ways that hinder this possibility, the class is denounced. Thus the call

for representative organs, for a “workers’ government” and so on. Only

by undermining the popular assemblies can this be achieved. As the

International Secretariat of the LRCI note, the crisis will be resolved

“either by the defeat of the masses and victorious counter-revolution

(irrespective of the form it takes) or by the seizure of power by the

working class, by a socialist revolution.” The politics of Leninism will

simply see the defeat of the masses and victorious counter-revolution

draped in a red flag — as has happened so many times before.

The struggle for “seizure of power by the working class” cannot be

achieved through a party. It can only be achieved by self-management, by

free federations of community and workplace popular assemblies. The role

of anarchists is to encourage this process, to combat any attempt to

disempower the working class no matter where it comes from. As Bakunin

argued, anarchists do “not accept, even in the process of revolutionary

transition, either constituent assemblies, provisional governments or

so-called revolutionary dictatorships; because we are convinced that

revolution is only sincere, honest and real in the hands of the masses,

and that when it is concentrated in those of a few ruling individuals it

inevitably and immediately becomes reaction.” Rather, the revolution

“everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme control must

always belong to the people organised into a free federation of

agricultural and industrial associations ... organised from the bottom

upwards by means of revolutionary delegation.” (Michael Bakunin:

Selected Writings, p. 237 and p. 172). History has proved him right.

The social revolution of the 21^(st) century must draw its poetry from

the present, not the past. The left is trying to squeeze current

struggles into a model created by events over 100 years ago in Tsarist

Russia. It is as if the revolution had been televised and we are being

subjected to repeats! Rather than using the past as a foundation to

build upon, they consider a home in which to inhabit (and a haunted

house at that!). The task of all serious revolutionaries must be to

learn from current events, build upon the autonomous struggles which are

happening and ensure that Argentina will not repeat the mistakes of the

past. And that means arguing for “all power to the popular and workplace

assemblies”!

[1] At least he mentions that anarchism played an important role in the

labour movement there, although, typically, he gets details of the

“Semana Tragica” of 1919 wrong. While he correctly notes that it was

started by a police attack on a 200,000 strong march led by anarchist

unions, he implies that it was the rival syndicalist unions which

proclaimed the General Strike. In fact, the anarchist FORA had

proclaimed a general strike the day before. The other unions repeated

this call the day after the attack so as not to be outflanked by the

anarchists. Equally significantly, the strike was undermined by

negotiations between the government and the syndicalist unions.

[2] Their argument has the same fallacies as Harman’s. They lambaste the

“uselessness of the centrists,” arguing that this, in part, “can be seen

in their confusion of mass meetings with soviet-type bodies, composed of

delegates.” Needless to say, the fallacy of their position is clear. The

difference between a delegate and a representative is that the former is

mandated by their electors and subject to recall by them, the latter is

given carte blanche during the period they are elected. In order for a

delegate to exist, there must be an assembly of electors who can create

and issue a mandate and be in a position to evaluate the performance of

the delegate with regard to that mandate. Thus a true delegate body has

to be based on mass meetings. This means that real “confusion” can be

seen if a group contrasts mass meetings and delegate bodies!

[3] The statement argues that the “popular masses” (“despite their

disillusion with all parties and politicians”) still have “major

democratic illusions.” How is it proposed to counteract these illusions?

Obviously not by raising the possibility of expanding and building upon

the concrete practice of direct democracy. No, that would strengthen the

influence of the “middle classes.” No, to combat illusions in bourgeois

representative democracy, the statement argues that “the call for

elections for a sovereign constituent assembly in the manner outlined

above retains its validity”! As per Lenin in 1920, we must fight

illusions by illusionary means.

[4] Rather than wonder why such hostility could exist, it is dismissed

as “anti-party sentiments” which “reflects not simply disillusionment

with the corrupt bourgeois political caste, but also petty bourgeois

distrust of the workers movement and revolutionary organisations.” Thus

leftist parties are equated with “the workers movement” and all

“revolutionary organisations.” The arrogance is astounding! And, of

course, the middle-classes do not form political parties and working

class people are never, ever, anti-political! But why let reality get in

the way of a nice rant?

[5] And this seems to be the source of some of the hostility directed

towards left parties: “These groups have attempted to use the assemblies

for their own reformist and statist demands. Typically, they will start

to get onto executive committees and then push for a motion proposing

nationalisation of various industries ... or other measures that divert

the struggle into legalistic and therefore easily-recuperable avenues.

This has not gone unnoticed by the assembly members, who have acted to

remove these parasites.” (Argentina: What Next?, Organise! no. 58)

[6] Although to be picky, Kropotkin had already raised this idea in his

account of the Great French Revolution in 1909 and it had been applied

by anarchists in both the Ukrainian and Spanish revolutions!

[7] The only exception were the Socialist Revolutionary Maximalists, who

were close to anarchism anyway. The syndicalists “regarded the soviets

... as admirable versions of the bourses du travail, but with a

revolutionary function added to suit Russian conditions. Open to all

leftist workers regardless of specific political affiliation, the

soviets were to act as nonpartisan labour councils improvised ‘from

below’ ... with the aim of bringing down the old regime.” The anarchists

of Khleb i Volia “also likened the 1905 Petersburg Soviet — as a

nonparty mass organisation — to the central committee of the Paris

Commune of 1871.” (Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, pp. 80–1)

Kropotkin argued that anarchists should take part in the soviets as long

as they “are organs of the struggle against the bourgeoisie and the

state, and not organs of authority.” (quoted by Graham Purchase,

Evolution and Revolution, p. 30)