💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › tomas-ibanez-farewell-to-the-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:18:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Farewell to the Revolution Author: Tomás Ibáñez Date: 1984 Language: en Topics: revolution, Revolutionary Anarchism Source: Retrieved on 11th May 2022 from https://autonomies.org/2010/04/farewell-to-the-revolution/ Notes: Originally presented by the author at the seminar “Which revolution” held at the international conference of anarchist studies, Venice, 1984; published in Volontá No. 1 (1985) and in the Argentine journal Utopia No. 9. This translation is based upon the latter and first appeared in Autonomy No. 1 (1989).
What is the relation that exists between anarchism, on one hand, and
social revolution on the other? The anarchist movement put this question
aside a long time ago, and in a certain sense, one can say that the
debate, “revolution, yes or no” is an old controversy, or if one
prefers, a problem for ideological dinosaurs, among whom I evidently
include myself.
I maintain that the concept of revolution is antithetical or
incompatible with anarchist thought, for the reason that the former
carries with it a series of consequences or effects which negate
liberty.
This is not to put into question the “desire for revolution,” which
constitutes a fundamental element of the sensibility of social
emancipation and of utopian thought. On the contrary libertarians, and
with them millions of people, dream, more or less vaguely, of a social
change that would end in a society radically different from the ones
that we are familiar with. This dream has been a part of the social
imagination since the time, not too distant, when it was discovered that
social forms are socio-historical forms, that is, relative forms; and as
a result, that it is conceiveable to act upon them so as to modify them
in accord with our will. To actively desire to live “in another place,”
in relation to what we experience as socially instituted, is undoubtedly
the imperative of all morality.
It is not therefore the desire for revolution that must be questioned.
On the contrary, the desire for revolution is a fundamental component of
all critical thought, and it is an indispensible part of the libertarian
utopia.
On the other hand, what is seriously problematic is the revolutionary
project. It is important to note the political, strategic elaboration of
the desire for revolution, its concrete translation into a
socio-political concept and as a libertarian practice. What appears
questionable is the constitution of the desire for revolution into a
rationally elaborated, articulated project, that could serve as a
vehicle for effective individual and collective action. For the desire
for revolution thus becomes, necessarily, a totalitarian enterprise and
an instrument for domination.
Why is it that the revolutionary project contradicts what can be
considered the very essence of anarchist thought? This is not a question
linked to the notion of insurrection or revolution. In effect, the
recourse to violence is frequently the sole valid means to overcome
certain situations, and I am not one of those who sees ih the use of
violence a “defect” that irremediably denaturalizes all action that has
an emancipatory vision. It is true that the means or instruments used
are never neutral and that the use of violence necessarily implies
certain consequences; but all the means of violence that we may use
carry with them unintended and uncontrollable secondary effects. The
rejection of violence of the oppressed does not appear to be
justifiable, though a rejection of a “strategy of violence” is.
Beyond the insurrectional aspect of revolution, what is being put into
question concerns a basic problem, linked to the very logic of the
concept of revolution. An historical analysis of the emergence and
development of the concept of social revolution would show us to what
extent this concept has been marked by the scientific model that is
proper to classical mechanics, and to what extent it is a tributary of
the deterministic and dominating scientistic ideology that impregnates
the Galilean-Newtonian scientific model. Lappo Berti[1] has formulated
this analysis in an excellent article that appears in the magazine
Aut-Aut; for this reason, I will not treat this issue in a detailed way,
and instead limit myself to simply pointing out that, historically, the
concept of revolution has been for the most part useful for the purposes
of the bourgeoisie, and more generally, for all projects that aim at
political power.
This aspect by itself would be sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt over
the pertinent, pretended libertarian concept of revolution; what
matters, however, is to note other aspects, and for those, it is
necessary to identify some characteristics of the notion of revolution.
A revolution obviously does not reduce itself to a simple transformation
of society. It is necessary to specify at least five supplementary
elements, in order to come to some understanding of it:
terms “revolution” and “evolution” would be interchangeable.
simple re-adjustment or social “reform.”
libertarians are not “democrats” satisfied with the realization of
majority rule. but demand that the revolution. if it is to be
“authentic.” must conform to their own proper criteria.
contrariwise one would be speaking of nothing but a temporary local
social change.
itself into atranscendental objective — the effects attributed to its
realization are sufficiently important. as this objective (the
revolution) is situated at a level qualitatively different from other
objectives. relegating these others to a position of hierarchical
subordination.
If we analyze the different consequences that follow from these five
characteristics. it is easy to see why the idea of revolution becomes
incompatible with anarchism from the moment that it takes on the form of
a political project. that is. a project that is virtually realizable and
that orients the oppositional social practice of libertarians. Very
briefly. I will cite three of these reasons:
1. The idea of revolution. as a supreme transcendental objective.
necessarily re-introduces a theological element into libertarian
thought. This supreme objective legitimizes the sacrifice of the present
to the future. concretely lived time to a purely ideal time – not to
speak of other sacrifices that extend from the self-sacrifice of the
militant and the sacrifice of others. through to the sacrifice of
“principles.” From the moment that there is a transcendental objective,
a supreme end, a value located in a future time, all sacrifices are
permitted. Given that the revolution could be achieved by means of a
strategy. whatever it be. we could not call ourselves libertarians If we
did not intend to carry it out — whatever the cost. The thousands of
deaths that instituted society daily causes. the innumerable sufferings
and humiliations of every moment. the permanent injustice. leaves us no
choice. If the revolution is inscribed as a possible consequence of a
strategy, nothing can justify the renunciation of that strategy. The
affirmation that “the end does not justify the means” loses, in this
context, all meaning which is not moralistic and pious. Of what
importance are the justifications if the result constitutes the end of
barbarism? We are dealing. obviously. with an old debate. but those who
believe that the revolution can be a direct consequence of their actions
have reasons to “scorn” the “good sentiments” of the libertarians. It is
undoubtedly necessary to choose between the belief in the revolutionary
project, on the one hand, and the libertarian “ideology” on the other.
One cannot be an anarchist and engage in a revolutionary project, as
this latter negates all libertarian values. Not having understood this,
the libertarians of the first half of the century were led into
incredible confusions. creating a distance between their practice and
their ideology.
2. The idea of revolution, as a global and totalizing project concerning
a given Society in its entirety, is necessarily a totalitarian project
because it ties, in the same fate, the totality of individual projects,
subordinating the particular to the general.
In effect, society is a system, in the strong sense of the term – all
its parts interact with one another and are interrelated. Society is
more than the sum of its parts, yet it is also less than the sum of its
parts, because each part, as incorporated in a system, suffers the
obligations that limit the expression of its own characteristics. The
“revolutionary project” also carries with it a “social project.” It is
not simply a negative endeavour aimed at destroying what is socially
instituted, for it involves the proposal of an alternative social
system. Consequently, the revolutionary project presents itself as a
plan, which will affect the existence of every one of the parts of the
social body, obliging, in addition, these parts to adapt themselves to
the social project as conceived by the “revolutionaries,” whether they
wish to or not. A social project can be conceived in a way so as to
maximize the liberty and autonomy of each social element, but each
element must adjust itself with the whole, and the whole secures the
compatibility by exercising the required material and ideological
functions. The model of society guided by a revolutionary project is
therefore a model for all. It is doubtful that the goal of libertarian
action is to promote a social system, whichever it may be, if it means
that, by definition, this system would have to be partially enforced.
3. Finally, the idea of revolution implies the belief in social
determinism, that is, the belief that society is a kind of machine
governed by laws, upon which one can apply certain causally efficacious
actions to produce controlled and predictable effects. Without this
belief, the “revolutionary project” makes no sense, since a strategy can
only be elaborated on the basis of a causal relation between the
realized actions and its produced consequences, or at least, in a
conviction in these causal characteristics. This tends to ignore the
fact that society is a self-organizing system, profoundly unpredictable
in its ‘reactions and in its functioning. And it also leads (though this
is a different question) to the acceptance of a model of knowledge of
the social based on the control of the object to be known, and
ultimately, on social control. Libertarian thought, by definition,
cannot shelter within its womb the concept of revolution, and should
comprehensively abandon the very use of the term “revolution.”
The practical activity of libertarians can, eventually, unleash and
provoke a revolution, but never as the result of a rational and coherent
project. The “desire for revolution” and “utopia,” conjoined with
libertarian practice, constitute powerful elements for social change.
They can force the social system to restructure itself without our
knowing precisely why and how. Fortunately, neither the libertarians,
nor any others, dominate sufficiently the mechanisms and the social laws
so as to control and lead them in accord with their will.
To conclude, I would like to state that anarchism is a system in
becoming, an essentially evolutionary system, which in its origins had
insufficiencies and authoritarian characteristics, and to this day
continues to have them. From the perspective of critical anarchism, the
concern, it may be said, is to improve anarchism from day to day,
freeing it progressively of its authoritarian contents.
Today, the progress of anarchist thought traverses three fundamental
conditions:
criticism and following through on all the consequences of Its
rejection.
and infer the consequences.
and draw the appropriate conclusions.
If what I have said is correct, it is truly a pity, since it was
agreeable to dream of a society without power, believing that all the
values that appeared to us as positive could be organized in a
harmonious bouquet, and it was undoubtedly exhilarating to live fighting
for the revolution.
Anarchists were among the first to proclaim that human beings should get
used to living without God, even though this was frustrating and
difficult; today, anarchists, and people in general, should learn to
live without the belief in revolution.
[1]
L. Berti, “Revoluzione o …?” Aut Aut, January 1980, Milan.
[2]
R. Pagés, “La Libertá, la guerre, la seritú”, Volontá, No. 4 (1984).