💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › larry-gambone-anarchism-and-radical-governments.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:03:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism and Radical Governments Author: Larry Gambone Date: February 28, 2009 Language: en Topics: government, state socialism, the left Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12265
How should anarchists relate to revolutionary or left-wing populist
governments? Should they denounce them out of hand? Should they join in
the movement? What are the traps to avoid? This is an important question
as radicalized populations are creating movements which give rise to
alleged progressive governments. As capitalism goes into ever-deeper
crisis we can expect more of these movements to develop.
Anarchism is more influential and wide-spread than at any time in the
last 70 years. And the movement continues to grow and develop. This does
not necessarily mean that we will become the predominate tendency. Even
during anarchism’s previous zenith – the years immediately after World
War One – we had to share the stage with other socialist currents. The
most important and far-reaching anarchist movement – that of Spain in
1936 – saw the formation of a united front involving the CNT-FAI, the
left-communist POUM and rank and file militants of the Socialist trade
unions.
It is safe to claim that social change – let alone social revolution –
will involve a number of different tendencies, of which anarchism will
be one, and not always the predominant one. Anarchists will work
together with the other tendencies which promote self-government and
self-management, in essence, all tendencies that in some manner or other
support the popular struggle. This notion is not a controversial issue
among us. We are already working along side other tendencies in the
environmental, peace, anti-fascist and anti-capitalist movements.
The problem comes for anarchists when the pressure of social movements
gives rise to populist, democratic socialist or “revolutionary”
governments. Examples of these are to found in Bolivia, Venezuela and
Ecuador. How do we , as resolute anti-statists, relate to governments,
which in some manner, reflect and act according to the needs and desires
of the social movements and the working population? How we react to
these situations can be fraught with danger to our movement.
In the past, anarchists have reacted in two opposing and erroneous ways.
One might be called “liquidationalism”. Here anarchists give up their
distinct program and dissolve themselves into the governing
“revolutionary” tendency. During the Russian Revolution, thousands of
anarchists joined the Bolsheviks or formed-Bolshevik inspired
organizations in their respective nations. Needless to say, the
Bolsheviks did not enact our program! After The 26 July Movement made
its turn toward the Communist Party, and Cuban anarchists were
suppressed, many anarchists outside Cuba tended to ignore the plight of
their comrades out of solidarity with the Cuban Revolution.
Liquidationalism means giving up on anarchism entirely, in exchange for
a bit of social progress, and sometimes not even that.
I think that liquidationalism comes about through anarchist weakness.
There had been few attempts at anarchist revolution prior to 1917, and
anarchism had “growing pains.” Bolshevism seemed to show the way. The
early 1960’s were the nadir of the anarchist movement and a lot of
anarchists looked for anything to be optimistic about, and Cuba seemed
to fit the bill. Since anarchism today is a growing force, I do not see
liquidationalism as a major problem, though, of course, one never knows
for sure.
Sectarianism is the other error. Surprise, surprise, democratic
socialists and populists are not anarchists! We cannot expect them to
carry out our program, but we can expect them to carry out the aspects
of their own program that help the populace. If they do this, should
they be condemned as enemies as evil as the corporatists and oligarchs?
What do the people think when anarchists damn these reformers ?
Sectarianism separates anarchists from the mass of the populace, who
cannot understand why erstwhile revolutionaries are condemning the very
actions which are improving their lives. What is even worse, is when
sectarianism leads to propaganda imitating the reactionaries. According
to the sectarian, the glass is never half-full, it is always empty.
Should reaction triumph, the sectarians will be tortured and killed
along with the other tendencies, and their sectarianism will remain as a
bitter taste in the mouths of a defeated people. (1)
This is most particularly the case in Latin America where the
mobilization of the populace immediately leads to polarization between
the masses and the oligarchy and its supporters. If the oligarchy gains
the upper hand in this struggle the result is the suppression of popular
movements, torture and massacre. To think that one can stand aside
during this polarization, or that it is “only a struggle between
bourgeois factions and doesn’t concern us” is to live in a dream world.
One cause of sectarianism is fetishizing the alleged or actual lessons
of the past. The Bolsheviks turned on their anarchist allies, so too,
Fidel Castro. Wherever Stalinism took over, anarchists and other radical
tendencies were eliminated. From this tragic history comes an unspoken
view that any revolution or government led by Marxists, real or alleged,
will end up following this pattern. But history does change not merely
repeating itself like a rubber stamp. Stalinism is not some Platonic
Form, hovering in the cosmos, just waiting to manifest at the first
outbreak of revolutionary change.
The alternatives to Stalinism – Trotskyism, democratic socialism and
anarchism – were too weak in the 1940’s and 50’s. Stalinism was
hegemonic at this time. But people learn what works and what doesn’t.
What was once seen as a viable model for revolutionary change – the one
party state plus nationalization of productive wealth – is no longer
seen as an answer. It does not create the sort of society that anyone
wants.
The movement away from the hegemony of the Stalinist model began in the
late 1960’s. The Unidad Popular government of Chile attempted to create
socialism, through a democratic process. The Sandinista Revolution in
Nicaragua did not go in a Stalinist direction. Rather than suppressing
all tendencies but their own, they favored a multi-tendency democracy –
even for the right-wing, a kindness that was not acknowledged.
What then should anarchists do in the face of new revolutionary or
progressive regimes that work to some measure in the interest of the
population? First off; Our loyalty is to the people, not the government
– or any government. If the people support a progressive government it
is because that government is responding to their wishes. A direct
frontal attack on such a government – until it truly begins to work
against its supporters – is futile and creates a wedge between us and
the people.
We should remain non-committal, as long as the government somehow acts
in the popular interest. When it deviates from that path, we criticize.
But there is also a way of criticizing that is not off-putting to the
people. That method is one of positive re-inforcement. To never cease
bringing up the need for direct democracy and self-management. If the
progressive government is reticent to go beyond words, our unending
needling on these points will be a powerful criticism, yet will not be
seen as a negative attack. Our goal should be to push the progressive
government, from below, to either the breaking point where it exposes
its reactionary other face, or to where it begins to dissolve itself
into popular power. And if this process cannot be pushed to its
libertarian fulfillment, we must win a strong base among the people, in
the unions, neighborhoods and social organizations, to defend our gains
and build a base for the next step in the struggle.
We must involve ourselves with the populace, if the people win some
measure of self-government and decentralization, we should be there,
pushing these measures to the full. If the revolutionary government
encourages coops, we should form them or join them, making sure they are
autonomous and democratic. Should reactionaries attempt to re-establish
their rule through a coup, electoral fraud or invasion, we must be at
the forefront of the resistance, not as government lackies, but as
supporters of the popular movements the reactionaries will destroy if
they regain power. Our slogan should not be “Defend our Government”, but
“Defend the People ... our Neighborhoods, Trade Unions, Cooperatives
etc.” At no time must we ally with reaction, even verbally, no matter
what our differences with the progressive government.
---
Personal Experiences
In 1972 a social democratic government (NDP) was elected in British
Columbia for the first time. At the same time, we were trying to build
an anarchist movement. There were maybe 25 or so people interested in
anarchism, half of whom belonged to our group. The NDP government
introduced “green belts” to protect the environment and agricultural
reserves to protect the farm land from developers. They raised welfare
from $95 a month to $160 and created a form of decentralized democratic
control of the welfare system. They abolished beating children in school
and other repressive legislation. Rather than denouncing them for
supposedly co-opting the environmental movement and community control,
which sectarians would have done, we said nothing. To ourselves, we were
pleased with what they did and were too busy trying to create an
anarchist movement to spend time attacking them, which would have been
the flea denouncing the elephant anyway.
What did happen was that half our group became so entranced with the
progressive actions of the government they wanted to join the NDP as a
bloc and push for further community control. When we refused, the
liquidationalist faction broke away and joined on their own. We
denounced them and for some time there was bitter hostility between the
two groups. The anarchists that remained went on to create the Vancouver
anarchist milieu which exists to this day. As for the “NDP anarchists”,
we eventually became friends again and they remained sympathetic to
anarchism, also to this very day.
In retrospect, liquidationalism arose because people did not have a full
understanding of anarchism. The experience of the sectarianism found in
the left sects generated an over-reaction in the opposite direction. We
also had no older, more experienced comrades to help us. We were
re-inventing the wheel, so to speak. We were correct not to attack the
NDP, but erred in not educating our membership as to the differences
between social democracy and anarchism.