💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › thomas-giovanni-building-power-and-advancing.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:17:20. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Building Power and Advancing Author: Thomas Giovanni Date: October 6, 2017 Language: en Topics: reform, reformism, anarcho-communism, Black Rose Anarchist Federation Source: Retrieved on 2020-04-12 from https://blackrosefed.org/for-reforms-not-reformism/
“We shall carry out all possible reforms in the spirit in which an army
advances ever forwards by snatching the enemy-occupied territory in its
path.” – Errico Malatesta [1]
As anarchist communists, we are against reformism. However, we are for
reforms. We believe that fundamentally the entire system of capitalism,
the state and all systems of hierarchy, domination, oppression and
exploitation of humans over humans must be abolished and replaced with a
direct democracy, egalitarian social relations and a classless economy
that bases contribution according to ability and distribution according
to need. However, such a social revolution can only occur through the
power of the popular classes themselves from the bottom-up. In advancing
towards such a social revolution and a free and equal society, we must
build our power in preparation for this fundamental transformation of
the world, building on struggles along the way. Ultimately our demands
will be too threatening to the elite classes for them to bear; and their
resistance to our drive for freedom will be too much for us to tolerate
any longer.
We are against reformism. Reformism is the belief that the system as it
currently exists can remain, but just needs to be slightly improved. For
reformists, reform is the end goal. They are not against the system;
they are against what they see as the “excesses” of the system. We don’t
see the harm that the system does as excesses of the system, but
expressions of the fundamental nature of the system. We see the
reformists trying to hold down the lid of a boiling pot of water, or
letting steam go from that boiling pot now and then; but they do not
address the fundamental problem.
For example, the problems under capitalism aren’t because some
capitalists are greedy or unfair- which they are; but rather that
capitalism itself is the problem. Our global wealth has been
historically created from the labor, resources and land from around the
world. While the genius of human technology, innovation and hard work
have been a factor; so slavery, exploitation, monopolization and theft
have been a factor. But regardless of the degrees to which oppression or
human genius played their respective roles in the creation of wealth,
there can be no doubt that every advance is completely rooted in social
relations and circumstance, as well as historical processes. Kropotkin
describes this from one perspective in The Conquest of Bread. [2] If
this is so, why are some allowed to own and control the land, wealth and
the means of production? Shouldn’t these be the common property of all
as the inheritance of all that has been contributed by human history and
the complex social processes that interacted to bring us to, and
maintain the wealth that we have today? So how can we justify
maintaining a system where some benefit more than others from the
historically developed and socially maintained wealth? And how can we
call only for reform of that system? It’d be like sitting at a family
dinner where your brother claims to own the kitchen even though you’re
cooking dinner with your parents. Your brother then receives all of the
food produced and gives you and your parents each 10% of the food while
he keeps 70% of it as the owner. A reformist response would be to say
that if only each member of the family were able to get a 15% or 20%
portion each (leaving your brother with a 55% or 40% share for being the
“owner”), everyone would be alright and less hungry. Our response would
be that it’s not about redistribution, the original distribution itself
is flawed, and so is the system of ownership and work responsibility of
the family. We must create a completely new system in which people share
the common products of labor, which is carried out according to each
person’s ability.
So if we’re against reformism, or reforms as the only goal, shouldn’t we
be against reforms themselves? No. We want to make gains, and we are
against the position that gains are pointless. Purism is the tendency of
some to try to be so pure in their ideological position that they are
unable to deal with the sloppiness of reality. It wrongly equates
reforms with reformism itself. It rejects any position that doesn’t
exactly mirror its ideological position. It leaves little room for
dialogue and building with others, and instead is trapped in a position
of constantly calling for the long-term vision without a clear proposal
as to how to get there, or a clear way to build with people along the
way. Purism often leads little room for activity besides ungrounded
agitational writing and abstract theorizing from the sidelines. This
“all or nothing” approach leaves little room for development towards a
revolutionary situation. It ignores how the short and medium-term can
connect to a long-term vision, and instead only focuses on the long
term.
So what is the solution for anarchist communists? We seek to build power
towards a revolution. We feel that only the mass movements of the
oppressed, exploited and dominated classes will be able to end
oppression, exploitation and domination. As members of these classes, we
seek to contribute to these movements. In the short-term, we seek to
make gains in consciousness, capacity, skills, solidarity, and
organization. From a revolutionary perspective this involves what the
FARJ calls social work and social insertion. [3] At first we are
participating in the social movements – social work – often times
without being able to have our views gain traction. Through consistent,
principled and effective participation, we are able to build
relationships with others; establish trust and respect; and dialogue
with others about our views and positions. After a while, we hope to
achieve some degree of social insertion: the influencing of social
movements in the direction of being more directly democratic, more
combative, more class-conscious, more anti-hierarchical, more infused
with a long-term revolutionary consciousness, and so on.
In the short-term, we also want to win reforms. Losing in a reform
struggle can demoralize participants around the possibility of struggle
achieving gains; and winning in a reform struggle can demobilize
participation and energy as people feel that they have succeed. But
likewise, winning in reform struggles can build confidence,
organization, capacity, solidarity, skills, and power; and losing in a
reform struggle, can strengthen resolve and sharpen strategy. The point
is that although we want reforms because they improve the lives of the
oppressed and popular classes of which we are a part; even more
fundamental to struggle– whether we win or lose- is developing the
strength of the movement, which can come out of both wins and gains in
reform struggles.
Some important elements within reform struggles are to:
elite power instead of legalistic, electoral or other top-down
“solutions.” This will build power rather than reinforcing savior
complex dependencies.
– and being prepared to deal with this – as well as emphasizing the
importance of struggle beyond the particular reform. Whether reforms are
won or lost, the struggle continues until the unjust situation is
changed.
attempting to improve these things together. If we aren’t basing our
struggle in praxis – the combination of action and reflection – then
we’re either engaging in empty, ungrounded theory from the sidelines, or
thoughtless, ineffective activism.
In the medium term, we want to build power. Of course we want to lessen
exploitation, oppression, and domination where possible; but in the
medium term – regardless of whether any given reform is won or lost –
the struggle itself must serve to strengthen the social movements and
class-based organizations so that they are able to grow and be more
effective in future struggles. We want to create a dynamic in which
bottom-up, directly democratic, anti-hierarchical, collective and
anti-oppressive class-based power grows stronger and stronger over time.
This power is the result of increased and shared consciousness of the
causes of exploitation, domination and oppression and of the ways to
fight and eventually end them. It’s the result of better functioning
organizations; more solidarity; less internal oppression between members
and a shared commitment of all to centrally challenge different
manifestations of institutional, systemic and cultural oppression; more
skill development and more equal distribution of skill development;
greater commitment to struggle; a realization of more effective ways to
struggle; and so on.
In the long-term, we want this popular bottom-up power to grow to the
point where it can effectively end all systems of oppression, domination
and exploitation, and replace them with directly democratic,
egalitarian, anti-hierarchical and cooperative political, economic and
social systems. We see this revolutionary situation coming about after
decades of battles- wins and losses- in which the popular classes
steadily increase their power and continue to demand more and more until
the demands of the popular classes are too much to concede for the elite
classes; and the power of the popular classes is enough to effectively
carry-out revolution: the abolition of the state and all forms of
government that dictate from above, and the replacement of this with
directly democratic popular decision-making; the expropriation of the
land and means of production from the capitalist class and its bottom-up
socialized self-management by the workers and communities; the
establishment of classless, egalitarian and cooperative global economies
in which economic contribution is according to ability and economic
distribution is according to need; the abolition of all systems of
oppression and their replacement with social systems, cultural practices
and relations that value and respect all people in their full humanity
and individuality; the abolition of national systems that value one
people over another and their replacement that gives dignity,
self-determination and freedom to all human beings and values them
equally as human beings across the globe; the end of environmental
devastation and its replacement with practices of environmental
sustainability and stewardship.
In short, we must reject the mentality – reformism – that sees any given
reform, or even series of reforms, as the final objective in our
struggles. We also must reject the mentality – purism – that rejects all
reforms as reformism, and as counterproductive and useless. Instead, we
must engage in struggles for reforms in the short-term. These reform
struggles must be the means by which we build bottom-up and horizontal
popular power- and the corresponding consciousness, skills, solidarity,
capacity and organization- in the medium-term. We must not stop building
this power, but continue grow, develop and advance – even if we falter
or are defeated temporarily at times – towards the possibility of a
revolutionary situation in which we destroy the fundamental causes of
exploitation, domination and oppression themselves, not just their
symptoms.
[1] Malatesta, Errico. The Anarchist Revolution: Polemical Articles
1924- 1931, Pg 81.
[2] Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread, Chapter 1: Our Riches.
[3] “Especifismo in Brazil: An Interview with the Anarchist Federation
of Rio de Janeiro (FARJ)” by Johnathan Payn.