DOCSLIB.ORG

Feathered Up: a New Defence of Anarchism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feathered Up: a New Defence of Anarchism All feathered up: a new defence of anarchism Martin Thomas Review of "Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism", by Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt (AK Press). ----------------- Variants of revolutionary syndicalism were major new authority to organise "coordinated military influences in the labour movements of several defence" with "the best weaponry" (i.e. not just countries between the 1890s and World War One. scattered militia groups with hand-weapons). Their activists reckoned the work of the "political" They agree that revolutionaries must build "a socialists who spent much time on parliamentary coherent... organisation, with a common analysis, electioneering to be deficient or even harmful, and strategy, and tactics, along with a measure of focused effort on building up militant and democratic collective responsibility, expressed in a programme". trade-union movements which they believed could be They use the term "party" sometimes and the term both the agency to overthrow capitalist power and the "vanguard" often for that. framework for future working-class administration of They agree that the party must be disciplined and society. Some of them saw themselves as anarchists tight. They quote with approval an account of the as well as syndicalists - "anarcho-syndicalists". Nabat organisation led by Nestor Makhno: "The Schmidt and van der Walt, a journalist and an secretariat... was not merely 'technically' executive... academic from Johannesburg, South Africa, tell us not It was also the movement's ideological 'pilot core'... only about the famous movements of France and controlling and deploying the movement's resources Spain, Argentina and Mexico, but also about the less- and militants". known ones of China, Japan, and Korea. While many anarchists today see the fact that Their book is not primarily a history. The authors Marxist organisations stretch themselves to produce reconstruct what the authors call a "broad anarchist and circulate weekly papers as infamous, Schmidt tradition". They argued that it includes all of and van der Walt report on the extensive newspaper- revolutionary syndicalism, not just the strands which producing and newspaper-selling culture of late 19th called themselves anarchist. They present their own century anarchists with approval and pride. variant of "anarchism" as the most thorough and They agree that the process of the working class "sophisticated" development of the "tradition". preparing itself for revolution must include struggle Their own version of anarchism is one in which the for reforms. They approvingly quote Bakunin's traditional points of dispute with Marxism are thinned statement, from the time (1867-8) when he was down or, some of them, virtually given up; but it is focused on trying to win over the bourgeois League accompanied by a horror of Marxism. for Peace and Freedom, that "the most imperfect Schmidt and van der Walt never say straight out republic is a thousand times better than the most that they agree that a working class overthrowing enlightened monarchy... The democratic regime lifts capitalism must organise from among itself a strong the masses up gradually to participation in public revolutionary authority to combat counter-revolution life". (Bakunin wrote different things later). and consolidate the new order. They never directly They emphasise that the value of the struggle for disavow the traditional anarchist doctrine of the reforms lies in organisation from below in the immediate abolition of any form of state. struggle; but this is not a point of difference from But they pointedly do not repeat Bakunin's doctrine Marxism. They explicitly dissent from the strands in that the task of anarchists on the day after any anarchism which "refuse to deal with reforms, laws, revolution must be (through, so Bakunin held, a and compromises". "secret" network of "invisible pilots") to thwart, Schmidt and van der Walt argue that revolutionary divert, disrupt the victorious workers in their moves socialists should work systematically in trade unions, to coordinate their efforts democratically by electing a generally on building sustained and organised rank- revolutionary authority. and-file movements, and also sometimes contest elections for union office. Junta They agree that revolutionary socialists should take up battles for national liberation - "engage seriously They agree with "taking power in society" and with national liberation struggles and [aim] at "creating a coordinated system of governance". They supplanting nationalism, radicalising the struggle, and say "stateless governance", but the adjective merging the national and class struggles in one "stateless", for them, seems to mean "radically revolutionary movement". democratic", "linked through delegates and They oppose "identity politics" and the "cultural mandates". In that sense, the Marxist-envisaged relativist" "claim made by some nationalists that "workers' state" (or, in Lenin's term, "semi-state"), is certain rights are alien to their cultures and therefore "stateless". unimportant or objectionable". They accept the term "Revolutionary Junta" or On all these points Schmidt and van der Walt have, "Workers' Republic" for the new authority. Although in in effect, a criticism of most of what calls itself one passage they claim that "class no longer exists" anarchism today different only in shading from what once the workers' revolution wins, in other passages we in Workers' Liberty would say. They are further they concede that counter-revolutionary groups will away from conventional anarchism than is a group not disappear instantly, and accept the need for the like the avowedly-Marxist Socialist Workers Party 1 today, with its "One Solution, Revolution" slogan and The poor quality of Schmidt's and van der Walt's its pretence that all "direct action" against the polemic on such points can be judged from their established order, even if it be led by Islamist quotations. For example, they claim that Marx was clerical-fascists, is revolutionary and progressive. cool on trade-unions, and that it was the anarchists Schmidt and van der Walt seem to stick to the old who explained and championed the potential of trade- anarchist dogma of boycotting all electoral politics - union struggles. "this would apply regardless of the mandates given... "Marx complained that anarchists contended that the wages paid to the parliamentarians, or the workers 'must... organise themselves by trades- existence of other mechanisms to keep the unions' to 'supplant the existing states'..." parliamentarians accountable to their constituents" - This is the passage from Marx (in a letter to Paul and their account of anarchists in Korea who were Lafargue of April 1870) from which Schmidt and van elected to parliament there in the 1920s is der Walt quote their snippets: disapproving. But they make little fuss about that "Bakunin's programme [held that] the working class issue. must not occupy itself with politics. They must only In one passage they uphold the old anarchist idea organise themselves by trades-unions. One fine day, of "the revolutionary general strike" as the only and by means of the International, they will supplant the more or less self-sufficient path to socialist revolution. place of all existing states. You see what a caricature But they make little of it, and other passages in the he [Bakunin] has made of my doctrines! book imply a much less "fetishistic" view of the "As the transformation of the existing States into general strike. Associations is our last end, we must allow the governments, those great Trade-Unions of the ruling Anti-Marxism classes, to do as they like, because to occupy ourselves with them is to acknowledge them. Why! In Their anti-Marxism is built not so much on a the same way the old socialists said: You must not defence of traditional anarchist points as on a skewed occupy yourselves with the wages question, because presentation of Marxism. For them, Marxism from its you want to abolish wages labour, and to struggle earliest days was proto-Stalinism. They construct with the capitalist about the rate of wages is to their picture of Marxism by "reading back" from acknowledge the wages system! Stalinism. "The ass has not even seen that every class They concede that "in claiming that his theory was movement, as a class movement, is necessarily and scientific, Marx was no different from say, Kropotkin was always a political movement". or Reclus, who saw their own theories as scientific". Marx was not hostile or cool about workers But somehow they also think that Marx's claim to organising in trade unions. On the contrary: he was have worked some things out and got some things probably (in "The Poverty of Philosophy", his polemic right was more sinister than the similar claim made against Proudhon in 1846, at a time when trade by anyone who ventures to trouble the public with unions existed only in infant form) the first socialist to their writings. argue that trade-union organisation could be central "Classical Marxism purported to alone understand in working-class emancipation. the movement of history and express the Marx's objection was not to organising in trade fundamental interests of the proletariat... When [this] unions, but to Bakunin's claim that the working class claim to a unique truth was welded to the strategy of should not also "occupy itself with politics" (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat... the formula for a struggles for political reforms, and electoral activity). one-party dictatorship through an authoritarian state Trotsky fought Stalinism to the death. But Schmidt was written". and van der Walt claim he "envisaged socialism as Marxist theory was also, the authors claim, 'authoritarian leadership... centralised distribution of "teleological", seeing history as progressing the labour force... the workers' state... entitled to mechanically "in a straight line towards a better send any worker wherever his labour may be future", through predetermined "stages". Marx (so needed', with dissenters sent to labour camps if they allege, on the basis of out-of-context snippets necessary".
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fernand Pelloutier and the Dilemma of Revolutionary Syndicalism1
    ALAN B. SPITZER ANARCHY AND CULTURE: FERNAND PELLOUTIER AND THE DILEMMA OF REVOLUTIONARY SYNDICALISM1 "nous voulons que l'emancipation du peuple soit 1'ceuvre du peuple lui-meme." (L'Organisation corporative et l'anarchie.) Advancing under socialist banners, the labor movement in Western Europe won such success by the end of the nineteenth century as to produce a deep moral and intellectual crisis in European socialism. Internecine quarrels over revisionism, participationism, and anti- political syndicalism reflected the malaise of a "revolutionary" move- ment that each year bound itself more closely to the system it had vowed to destroy. For socialist theoreticians, the crisis was cognitive or "scientific" - it had to do with issues of adequate historical analysis and prediction - but for the theorists of French revolutionary syn- dicalism it was essentially a moral crisis. In their eyes the socialist parties had already failed because they were the instruments for manipulation and betrayal of the workers by leaders whose ambitions could be gratified through the capitalist establishment. They identified a practical and moral alternative to political socialism in the revolution- ary general strike prepared and carried out by autonomous proletarian organizations. Such organizations were necessary to the idealists of the general strike if their programs were not to degenerate into a strictly verbal revolutionary Coueism and they therefore put great stock in the development of militant working-class associations. Among these, the Bourses du Travail, which flourished from 1895 to 1901 under the dedicated direction of the anarchist intellectual, Fernand Pelloutier,2 seemed the most promising. Fernand Pelloutier came to revolutionary syndicalism out of a background of provincial republican politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Rebels with a Cause: Revolutionary Syndicalism, Anarchism, and Socialism in Fin-De-Siècle France
    Rebels with a Cause: Revolutionary Syndicalism, Anarchism, and Socialism in Fin-De-Siècle France Andrew P. Miller History In his influential book, Revolutionary Syndicalism and French Labor, Peter Stearns presents the fin-de-siècle syndicalist movement in France as “a cause without rebels.” Stearns asserts that syndicalist leaders and intellectuals “produced distinctive and abundant rhetoric…yet they did not characterize French labor in their heyday and they did not set an enduring trend.”1 For Stearns, the revolutionary syndicalists failed to meet the workers’ material needs and paralyzed the unionist movement because they did not have a centralized leadership dedicated to pragmatic business and organizational practices. Bernard Moss comes to a similar conclusion, stating that the workers’ shift from “a cooperative strategy in alliance with the reformist middle class” to “a revolutionary strategy of class struggle” through loose federations and autonomous trade associations hampered the centralized discipline and political power of unions at the turn of the century.2 Stearns and Moss engage the French labor movement from very different perspectives, but in the end, both either discount or fail to recognize the specific ideals and moral tradition behind revolutionary syndicalism. Stearns’s concern with the importance of higher wages and job security conceals the fact that narrow, short-term gains were not the main objectives of the skilled labor force in the syndicalist movement. Moss, on the other hand, recognizes the ideological character of the movement, but fails to acknowledge that political socialism, as a path into twentieth-century industrial politics, eventually embedded the French syndicalists in the capitalist system they sought to overturn.
    [Show full text]
  • LEON TROTSKY: from "COMMUNISM and SYNDICALISM" the Trade Union Question Is One of the Most Important for the Labour Movement And, Consequently, for the Opposition
    LEON TROTSKY: FROM "COMMUNISM AND SYNDICALISM" The trade union question is one of the most important for the labour movement and, consequently, for the Opposition. Without a precise position on the trade union question, the Opposition will be unable to win real influence in the working class... 1. The Communist Party is the fundamental weapon of revolutionary action of the proletariat the combat organisation of its vanguard that must raise itself to the role of leader of the working class in all the spheres of its struggle without exception, and consequently, in the trade union field. 2. Those who, in principle, counterpose trade union autonomy to the leadership of the Communist Party, counterpose thereby – whether they want to or not – the most backward proletarian section to the vanguard of the working class, the struggle for immediate demands to the struggle for the complete liberation of the workers, reformism to Communism, opportunism to revolutionary Marxism. 3. Prewar French syndicalism, at the epoch of its rise and expansion, by fighting for trade union autonomy actually fought for its independence from the bourgeois government and its parties, among them that of reformist-parliamentary socialism. This was a struggle against opportunism – for a revolutionary road. Revolutionary syndicalism did not in this connection, make a fetish of the autonomy of the mass organisations. On the contrary, it understood and preached the leading role of the revolutionary minority in relation to the mass organisations, which reflect the working class with all its contradictions, its backwardness, and its weaknesses. 4. The theory of the active minority was, in essence, an incomplete theory of a proletarian party.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming Syndicalism: from Spain to South Africa to Global Labour Today
    Global Issues Reclaiming Syndicalism: From Spain to South Africa to global labour today Lucien van der Walt, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa Union politics remain central to the new century. It remains central because of the ongoing importance of unions as mass movements, internationally, and because unions, like other popular movements, are confronted with the very real challenge of articulating an alternative, transformative vision. There is much to be learned from the historic and current tradition of anarcho- and revolutionary syndicalism. This is a tradition with a surprisingly substantial and impressive history, including in the former colonial world; a tradition that envisages anti-bureaucratic and bottom-up trade unions as key means of educating and mobilising workers, and of championing the economic, social and political struggles of the broad working class, independent of parliamentary politics and party tutelage; and that aims, ultimately, at transforming society through union-led workplace occupations that will institute self-management and participatory economic planning, abolishing markets, hierarchies and states. This contribution seeks, firstly, to contribute to the recovery of the historical memory of the working class by drawing attention to its multiple traditions and rich history; secondly, to make a contribution to current debates on the struggles, direction and options for the working class movement (including unions) in a period of flux in which the fixed patterns of the last forty years are slowly melting away; thirdly, it argues that many current union approaches – among them, business unionism, social movement unionism, and political unionism – have substantial failings and limitations; and finally, it points to the need for labour studies and industrial sociology to pay greater attention to labour traditions besides business unionism, social movement unionism, and political unionism.
    [Show full text]
  • A Socialist Critique of the “Marxist-Leninist” Left
    After the Revolution: Who Rules? A socialist critique of the “Marxist-Leninist” left. Published Online by Socialist Labor Party of America www.slp.org March 2007 After the Revolution: Who Rules? A socialist critique of the “Marxist-Leninist” left PUBLISHING HISTORY PRINTED EDITION ..................................... January 1978 ONLINE EDITION ....................................... March 2007 NEW YORK LABOR NEWS P.O. BOX 218 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94042-0218 http://www.slp.org/nyln.htm Introduction The articles compiled here were prompted by a call for the formation of a “new communist party” issued in June of 1977. The call came from the New York-based radical newspaper, the Guardian, and was one of several proposals for a new party to come out of the U.S. left over the past few years. In a broader sense, however, these articles are not so much a reply to the Guardian as they are a general critique of the theory and programs of the various “Marxist-Leninist” groups. As a consequence, they include an important discussion of basic Marxist concepts and of the fundamental content of a revolutionary socialist program. As mentioned in the text, the pro-Maoist Marxist-Leninist groups enjoyed a period of expansion in the U.S. and Europe during the late 1960s and early ’70s. This expansion came on the heels of the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” in China and the emergence of the People’s Republic from over 25 years of relative isolation. China’s influence, combined with the intense opposition throughout the capitalist world to U.S. imperialism’s war on Vietnam, produced a sizable number of youth whose radicalization was expressed in terms of “Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse- tung1 Thought.” However, those tied to China’s rising star soon found themselves in a dilemma familiar to all who allow bureaucratic governments in Peking, Moscow or elsewhere to do their thinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Anarchism, Individualism and Communism: William Morris's Critique of Anarcho-Communism
    Loughborough University Institutional Repository Anarchism, individualism and communism: William Morris's critique of anarcho-communism This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository by the/an author. Citation: KINNA, R., 2012. Anarchism, individualism and communism: William Morris's critique of anarcho-communism. IN: Prichard, A. ... et al (eds). Liber- tarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.35-56. Additional Information: • This is a book chapter. It is reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan. This extract is taken from the author's original manuscript and has not been edited. The definitive, published, version of record is available here: www.palgrave.com Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/12730 Version: Accepted for publication Publisher: Palgrave MacMillan ( c Alex Prichard, Ruth Kinna, Saku Pinta and Dave Berry) Please cite the published version. This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions. For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ 3 Anarchism, Individualism and Communism: William Morris’s Critique of Anarcho- communism Ruth Kinna Introduction William Morris’s commitment to revolutionary socialism is now well established, but the nature of his politics, specifically his relationship to Marxism and anarchist thought, is still contested. Perhaps, as Mark Bevir has argued, the ideological label pinned to Morris’s socialism is of ‘little importance’ for as long as his political thought is described adequately. Nevertheless, the starting point for this essay is that thinking about the application of ideological descriptors is a useful exercise and one which sheds important light on Morris’s socialism and the process of ideological formation in the late nineteenth-century socialist movement.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of Revolutionary Socialism: the Implications of Bhaskar Sunkara’S "The Socialist Manifesto"
    Class, Race and Corporate Power Volume 7 Issue 2 Article 1 2019 In Defense of Revolutionary Socialism: The Implications of Bhaskar Sunkara’s "The Socialist Manifesto" Ronald W. Cox Florida International University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Cox, Ronald W. (2019) "In Defense of Revolutionary Socialism: The Implications of Bhaskar Sunkara’s "The Socialist Manifesto"," Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 7 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.7.2.008327 Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol7/iss2/1 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Class, Race and Corporate Power by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. In Defense of Revolutionary Socialism: The Implications of Bhaskar Sunkara’s "The Socialist Manifesto" Abstract This review of Bhaskar Sunkara’s The Socialist Manifesto locates the book within socialist debates about revolutionary praxis and the limits of reform versus revolution. The reviewer argues that the book has been accused, both fairly and unfairly, as “socialism without revolution,” an argument that can only be understood by delving more deeply into the positions advocated by the author. While Sunkara does in fact advance a “revolutionary socialism” in terms of concrete policy proposals, it is fair to ask critical questions about whether or not his limited interrogation of capitalist power is compatible with his self- professed goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Bassem Chit and Revolutionary Socialism in Lebanon
    CLOSE UP 65 Bassem Chit and Revolutionary Socialism in Lebanon Sune Haugbolle Figure 1 : Turkey Agenda. “Interview with the Late Bassem Chit on Politics and and Culture in Lebanon and the Middle East.” www.turkeyagenda.com Web. 16. Oct. 2014 This article discusses the Lebanese draws on the sociology of intellectuals, miss your voice, Bassem.” They refer to activist and writer Bassem Chit as an in particular Gramsci, in the analysis of Bassem Chit, the Lebanese revolutionary example of the intellectual rebel in Bassam Chit’s work and his post mortem socialist, writer and activist who died from Lebanon and the Arab world. It analyses veneration. a heart attack on October 1, 2014. For a the ideological tradition of revolutionary limited circle of Lebanese, Arab and inter- socialism and the Arab left. Through Keywords: Socialism; Arab Left; Intellec- national revolutionary socialists, Bassem an analysis of interviews and articles, tual History Chit is a rebel martyr, whose life and work Haugbolle attempts to locate the place continue to inspire. He died at the tender and nature of intellectual production in During the 2015 social protests against age of 34 after a life devoted to renewing the organisation of revolutionary activity, Lebanon’s political elite, I have often read Marxism and revolutionary socialism. His and the particular role rebel intellectuals on Facebook threads laments such as, friends and comrades now miss his voice play in bringing about social change. It “what would Bassem have said?” and “we and his sharp analysis more than ever, at a Middle East – Topics & Arguments #06–2016 CLOSE UP 66 time when they feel that a chink in the scape of thought and action.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Kropotkin Ecologist, Philosopher and Revolutionary
    Peter Kropotkin Ecologist, Philosopher and Revolutionary Graham Purchase A thesis submitted to The School of Philosophy The University of New South Wales Sydney Australia in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2003 Certificate of Originality I hereby declare that this submission is my own and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in this thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the projects design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. (Signed)…………………………… Contents Chapter 1 The Life and Times Peters Kropotkin Chapter 2 Kropotkin and The Birth of Ecology Chapter 3 The Mutual Aid Theories Chapter 4 Evolution and Environment: The Weismann-Kropotkin debate Chapter 5 Kropotkin’s Social Anarchism: Its Environmental Dimensions Chapter 6 Anarchism and Organisation Chapter 7 Progressivism Chapter 8 Scientific Metaphores: Struggle and Cooperation Bibliography 3 Abstract Peter Kropotkin: Ecologist, Philosopher and Revolutionary By Graham Purchase The Problem Investigated: This thesis is conceived as: [1] a work of scholarship and exegesis [2] an examination of more recent scientific works which use similar metaphors or concepts, eg.
    [Show full text]
  • What Revolutionary Socialism Means. by Carl D
    Thompson: What Revolutionary Socialism Means [Oct. 1903] 1 What Revolutionary Socialism Means. by Carl D. Thompson Published in The Vanguard [Green Bay, WI], v. 2, no. 2 (Oct. 1903), pp. 13- Socialism is not a reform, it is a revolution. And first of all, let it be clearly understood This is the position held by all scientific Socialists everywhere that by revolution Socialists do not everywhere. But such a statement made without mean violence or bloodshed. It is safe to say that explanation with a non-Socialist or in a lecture to every scientific Socialist in the world would re- an ordinary audience is certain to be misunder- gard it a calamity to the cause, as well as to hu- stood. When the word “revolution” is spoken the manity, to have a violent upheaval in society. The common run of people think of violence, future may see violence of bloodshed, of armies and navies. It does and war, as has the past. not matter what the “scientific” and “dic- Our present social prob- tionary” definition of the term is, common lem may involve this people don’t carry an unabridged dictio- nation and others in se- nary with them as a rule. To use the term rious trouble, but it is without explanation is to get one’s self and quite evident that if one’s cause seriously misunderstood. And such should be the case sometimes while listening to the speech of it would be not the re- Socialists one cannot but feel that they are sult of the teaching of not always entirely clear themselves as to Socialism, but rather the just what is meant by the expression “revo- result of the refusal of lutionary Socialism.” the rulers to accept the And yet we need some designation Socialistic program.
    [Show full text]
  • When Kropotkin Met Lenin Ruth Kinna Loughborough University
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Loughborough University Institutional Repository When Kropotkin met Lenin Ruth Kinna Loughborough University Introduction In 1970 the left libertarian Maurice Brinton presented a novel version of the victor’s history thesis in an attempt to show why historical analysis of the Russian revolution remained an urgent task. Brinton was not interested in exposing the partiality of Soviet narratives of the revolution or in presenting an ideologically-driven critique of past events or decisions. Instead he wanted to recover the revolution’s conceptual history. He argued that, like it or not, post-revolutionary socialism was impregnated with the ‘ethos, traditions and organisational conceptions of Bolshevism’.1 Perhaps we may not have been all Bolsheviks then but we nonetheless inhabited the conceptual world that they had shaped. Failing to appreciate how profoundly the languages of socialism had been moulded in the course of past revolutionary struggles, led modern political activists to formulate their politics imprecisely and feebly. Instead of interrogating the meaning of principles bequeathed by their revolutionary idols, the critics were lazily repeated their old demands as if their sense was clear. History had been reduced to a vehicle for toothless finger-wagging and critical energy was diverted in the confirmation of deeply- rooted anti-Bolshevik positions. Brinton’s argument resonated with a charge made by the anarchist Voline much earlier: that the Bolsheviks had used propaganda to hijack slogans popularised by political rivals in order to advance policies that were entirely out of kilter with the opposition’s proposals.2 However Brinton was interested the content of the ideas, not their cynical manipulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarian Socialism
    Libertarian Socialism PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:52:27 UTC Contents Articles Libertarian socialism 1 The Venus Project 37 The Zeitgeist Movement 39 References Article Sources and Contributors 42 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 43 Article Licenses License 44 Libertarian socialism 1 Libertarian socialism Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property[5]. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[6] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[7][8] or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[1][2][9] Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[10] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that
    [Show full text]