DOCSLIB.ORG

An Anarchist FAQ — Section H Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Anarchist FAQ — Section H Contents An Anarchist FAQ — Section H Contents Section H: Why do anarchists oppose state socialism? 4 H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism? 11 H.1.1 What was Bakunin's critique of Marxism? ..................... 15 H.1.2 What are the key differences between anarchists and Marxists? . 27 H.1.3 Why do anarchists wish to abolish the state "overnight"? . 33 H.1.4 Do anarchists have "absolutely no idea" of what to put in place of the state? . 36 H.1.5 Why do anarchists reject "utilising the present state"? . 40 H.1.6 Why do anarchists try to "build the new world in the shell of the old"? . 45 H.1.7 Haven't you read Lenin's "State and Revolution"? . 50 H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent? 59 H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution? .................... 64 H.2.2 Do anarchists reject "class conflict" and "collective struggle"? . 71 H.2.3 Does anarchism yearn "for what has gone before"? . 77 H.2.4 Do anarchists think "the state is the main enemy"? . 82 H.2.5 Do anarchists think "full blown" socialism will be created overnight? . 87 H.2.6 How do Marxists misrepresent anarchist ideas on mutual aid? . 90 H.2.7 Who do anarchists see as their "agents of social change"? . 94 H.2.8 What is the relationship of anarchism to syndicalism? . 100 H.2.9 Do anarchists have "liberal" politics? . 104 H.2.10 Are anarchists against leadership? . 107 H.2.11 Are anarchists "anti-democratic"? . 111 H.2.12 Does anarchism survive only in the absence of a strong workers' movement? . 120 H.2.13 Do anarchists reject "political" struggles and action? . 127 H.2.14 Are anarchist organisations "ineffective," "elitist" or "downright bizarre"? . 129 H.3 What are the myths of state socialism? 136 H.3.1 Do anarchists and Marxists want the same thing? . 139 H.3.2 Is Marxism "socialism from below"? . 147 H.3.3 Is Leninism "socialism from below"? . 153 H.3.4 Don't anarchists just quote Marxists selectively? . 158 H.3.5 Has Marxist appropriation of anarchist ideas changed it? . 161 H.3.6 Is Marxism the only revolutionary politics which have worked? . 168 H.3.7 What is wrong with the Marxist theory of the state? . 170 H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state? . 180 H.3.9 Is the state simply an agent of economic power? . 188 H.3.10 Has Marxism always supported the idea of workers' councils? . 198 2 H.3.11 Does Marxism aim to give power to workers' organisations? . 212 H.3.12 Is Big Business the precondition for socialism? . 217 H.3.13 Why is state socialism just state capitalism? . 226 H.3.14 Don't Marxists believe in workers' control? . 234 H.4 Didn’t Engels refute anarchism in ”On Authority” ? 241 H.4.1 Does organisation imply the end of liberty? . 245 H.4.2 Does free love show the weakness of Engels' argument? . 247 H.4.3 How do anarchists propose to run a factory? . 249 H.4.4 How does the class struggle refute Engels' arguments? . 250 H.4.5 Is the way industry operates "independent of all social organisation"? . 253 H.4.6 Why does Engels' "On Authority" harm Marxism? . 257 H.4.7 Is revolution "the most authoritarian thing there is"? . 259 H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it? 262 H.5.1 Why are vanguard parties anti-socialist? . 264 H.5.2 Have vanguardist assumptions been validated? . 268 H.5.3 Why does vanguardism imply party power? . 270 H.5.4 Did Lenin abandon vanguardism? . 274 H.5.5 What is "democratic centralism"? . 280 H.5.6 Why do anarchists oppose "democratic centralism"? . 282 H.5.7 Is the way revolutionaries organise important? . 285 H.5.8 Are vanguard parties effective? . 286 H.5.9 What are vanguard parties effective at? . 289 H.5.10 Why does "democratic centralism" produce "bureaucratic centralism"? . 290 H.5.11 Can you provide an example of the negative nature of vanguard parties? . 294 H.5.12 Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties work? . 297 H.6 Why did the Russian Revolution fail? 307 H.6.1 Can objective factors explain the failure of the Russian Revolution? . 312 H.6.2 Did Bolshevik ideology influence the outcome of the Russian Revolution? . 320 H.6.3 Were the Russian workers "declassed" and "atomised"? . 333 3 Section H: Why do anarchists oppose state socialism? The socialist movement has been continually divided, with various different tendencies and movements. The main tendencies of socialism are state socialism (Social Democracy, Leninism, Maoism and so on) and libertarian socialism (anarchism mostly, but also libertarian Marxists and others). The conflict and disagreement between anarchists and Marxists is legendary. As Benjamin Tucker noted: "it is a curious fact that the two extremes of the [socialist movement] . though united . by the common claim that labour should be put in possession of its own, are more diametrically opposed to each other in their fundamental principles of social action and their methods of reaching the ends aimed at than either is to their common enemy, existing society. They are based on two principles the history of whose conflict isalmost equivalent to the history of the world since man came into it . "The two principles referred to are AUTHORITY and LIBERTY, and the names ofthetwo schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly represent one or the other are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools want and how they propose to get it understands the Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism." [The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 78-9] In addition to this divide between libertarian and authoritarian forms of socialism, there is an- other divide between reformist and revolutionary wings of these two tendencies. "The term 'anar- chist,'" Murray Bookchin wrote, "is a generic word like the term 'socialist,' and there are probably as many different kinds of anarchists are there are socialists. In both cases, the spectrum rangesfrom individuals whose views derive from an extension of liberalism (the 'individualist anarchists', the social-democrats) to revolutionary communists (the anarcho-communists, the revolutionary Marx- ists, Leninists and Trotskyites)." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 138f] In this section of the FAQ we concentrate on the conflict between the revolutionary wings of both movements. Here we discuss why communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and other revolutionary anarchists reject Marxist theories, particularly the ideas of Leninists and Trot- skyites. We will concentrate almost entirely on the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky as well as the Russian Revolution. This is because many Marxists reject the Chinese, Cuban and other revolutions as being infected from the start by Stalinism. In contrast, there is a general agreement in Marxist circles that the Russian Revolution was a true socialist revolution and the ideas of Lenin (and usually Trotsky) follow in Marx's footsteps. What we say against Marx and Lenin is also applicable to their more controversial followers and, therefore, we ignore them. We also dismiss out of hand any suggestion that the Stalinist regime was remotely socialist. Unfortu- nately many serious revolutionaries consider Lenin's regime to be an example of a valid socialist revolution so we have to discuss why it was not. As noted, two main wings of the revolutionary socialist movement, anarchism and Marxism, have always been in conflict. While, with the apparent success of the Russian revolution, the anarchist movement was overshadowed by Leninism in many countries, this situation has been changing. In recent years anarchism has seen a revival as more and more people recognise the fundamentally anti-socialist nature of the Russian "experiment" and the politics that inspired it. With this re-evaluation of socialism and the Soviet Union, more and more people are rejecting 5 Marxism and embracing libertarian socialism. As can be seen from the press coverage from such events as the anti-Poll Tax riots in the UK at the start of the 1990s, the London J18 and N30 demonstrations in 1999 as well as those in Prague, Quebec, Genoa and Gothenburg anarchism has become synonymous with anti-capitalism. Needless to say, when anarchists re-appear in the media and news bulletins the self-proclaimed "vanguard(s) of the proletariat" become worried and hurriedly write patronising articles on "an- archism" (without bothering to really understand it or its arguments against Marxism). These articles are usually a mishmash of lies, irrelevant personal attacks, distortions of the anarchist position and the ridiculous assumption that anarchists are anarchists because no one has both- ered to inform of us of what "Marxism" is "really" about. We do not aim to repeat such "scientific" analysis in our FAQ so we shall concentrate on politics and history. By so doing we will indicate that anarchists are anarchists because we understand Marxism and reject it as being unable to lead to a socialist society. It is unfortunately common for many Marxists, particularly Leninist influenced ones, to con- centrate on personalities and not politics when discussing anarchist ideas. In other words, they attack anarchists rather than present a critique of anarchism. This can be seen, for example, when many Leninists attempt to "refute" the whole of anarchism, its theory and history, by point- ing out the personal failings of specific anarchists.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ~ the Soviet-East European Concept of People's Democracy
    ~ The Soviet - East European Concept of People's Democracy The Political Situation At the end of World \Var I I the leaders of the Communist Parties of Poland, Germany, I-lungary, l{ umania, and Bulgaria returned to their countries in the baggagetrain of the l{ ed Army and assumedcontrol of the " commanding heights" of society in dcpcndence on the Soviet occupation forces.) These Communist Parties were burdened with a dual weaknessthat limited their radicalism in the initial postwar period. All faced significant , organized opposition to the consolidation of their rule, resistance being strongest in Poland and weakest in Bulgaria. This internal situation dictated a policy of gradualism, generalized by Hugh Seton-\Vatson2 as encompassing three stages: ( 1) a genuine coalition with the surviving socialist and peasant parties resting on a short-tcrm program of mutually accepted " antifascist " and " democratic " reforms (lasting until early 1945 in Bulgaria and l{ umania and until early 1947 in l Iungary); (2) a bogus coalition with the same parties, thcmselvcs increasingly dominated by Communists, implemcnting more radical social reforms and more openly suppressing the non-Communist opposition (lasting until late 1947 or early 1948); at this stage, socialism was spoken of only as a distant goal; economic planning was introduced but remained limited in scope; collectivization of agriculture was not mentioned ; (3) a monolithic regime that , having liquidated its opposition , set out to emulate the Soviet Union in " building socialism" through forced industrialization and collectivization . Anothcr aspect of the weakness of the East Europcan Communist Partics was their great dependcnce on the Soviet Union and thus thcir subordination to the broader goals of Soviet foreign policy .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Five
    CHAPTER FIVE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY The post-war people’s democracies that developed in Eastern Europe and China embodied the main features of the Popular Front government advocated at the Seventh Congress of the Communist International. Politically, they were based on a multi-party, parliamentary system that included all the anti-fascist elements of the wartime Fatherland Front movements. Economically, they nationalized the most vital monopolized industries and allowed smaller capitalist industries and agriculture to continue business as usual. The theoretical status of the people’s democracies, however, was obscured by uncertainty over the future relations between the USSR and the West. If the wartime alliance was to be preserved, the communists had no wish to offend anyone with loose talk of ‘dictatorship’, whether revolutionary democratic or proletarian. Consequently, until 1948 theoretical discussions of the people’s democracies were by and large phrased in ‘apolitical’ terms, and were not associated with earlier communist theses on the state. The communist theoretician Eugen Varga, for example, wrote in 1947 that the people’s democracies were “...something entirely new in the history of mankind...” (Cited in Kase, People’s Democracies, Sijthoff, Leyden, Netherlands, 1968, p.18). They allowed capitalism, and yet protected the interests of the people. In a few years, however, the theoreticians would discover that despite multi-party composition, parliamentarism and capitalism, the people’s democracies were indeed forms of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” after all. A. Eastern Europe As consideration for his outstanding theoretical contributions to the communist movement, Dimitrov was allowed to further develop the principles of the People’s Front from the vantage point of leader of the new Bulgarian state.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Enforcement Intelligence: a Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies
    David L. Carter, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies November 2004 David L. Carter, Ph.D. This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement #2003-CK-WX-0455 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Points of view or opinions contained in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or Michigan State University. Preface The world of law enforcement intelligence has changed dramatically since September 11, 2001. State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies have been tasked with a variety of new responsibilities; intelligence is just one. In addition, the intelligence discipline has evolved significantly in recent years. As these various trends have merged, increasing numbers of American law enforcement agencies have begun to explore, and sometimes embrace, the intelligence function. This guide is intended to help them in this process. The guide is directed primarily toward state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies of all sizes that need to develop or reinvigorate their intelligence function. Rather than being a manual to teach a person how to be an intelligence analyst, it is directed toward that manager, supervisor, or officer who is assigned to create an intelligence function. It is intended to provide ideas, definitions, concepts, policies, and resources. It is a primer- a place to start on a new managerial journey. Every effort was made to incorporate the state of the art in law enforcement intelligence: Intelligence-Led Policing, the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, the FBI Intelligence Program, the array of new intelligence activities occurring in the Department of Homeland Security, community policing, and various other significant developments in the reengineered arena of intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • APA Newsletters
    APA Newsletters Volume 05, Number 2 Spring 2006 NEWSLETTER ON THE BLACK EXPERIENCE FROM THE EDITORS, JOHN MCCLENDON AND GEORGE YANCY ARTICLE JOHN H. MCCLENDON III “Dr. Richard Ishmael McKinney: Historical Summation on the Life of a Pioneering African American Philosopher” BOOK REVIEW Cornel West: Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism REVIEWED BY ROBERT E. BIRT © 2006 by The American Philosophical Association ISSN: 1067-9464 APA NEWSLETTER ON Philosophy and the Black Experience John McClendon & George Yancy, Co-Editors Spring 2006 Volume 05, Number 2 philosophy of religion and existentialism. Birt reminisces fondly ROM THE DITORS about McKinney, disclosing that it was Richard McKinney who F E had an incredible way of teaching philosophy, transforming dry textual exegesis into a living philosophical tradition. Throughout the course of our editorship of the Newsletter, we have insisted on the significance of and need for the reconstruction of the history of African American philosophy. In the Fall 2004 issue of this Newsletter, John H. McClendon III in ARTICLES his article, “The African American Philosopher and Academic Philosophy: On the Problem of Historical Interpretation,” presented a challenge to all of us to seriously undertake the Dr. Richard Ishmael McKinney: Historical tasks of recovering the role of the African American academic philosopher. In keeping with this challenge this issue of the Summation on the Life of a Pioneering Newsletter on Philosophy and the Black Experience seeks to African American Philosopher highlight the neglected topic of the history of African American academic philosophers by focusing on the contribution and John H. McClendon III legacy of a key figure, the late Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Review of Slovo's “Has Socialism Failed?”
    South African Communist Party 1990 Crisis of Conscience in the SACP: A Critical Review of Slovo’s “Has Socialism Failed?” Written: by Z. Pallo Jordan. Lusaka, February 1990. Transcribed: by Dominic Tweedie. “Has Socialism Failed?” is the intriguing title Comrade Joe Slovo has given to a discussion pamphlet published under the imprint of ‘Umsebenzi’, the quarterly newspaper of the SACP. The reader is advised at the outset that these are Slovo’s individual views, and not those of the SACP. While this is helpful it introduces a note of uncertainty regarding the pamphlet’s authority. The pamphlet itself is divided into six parts, the first five being an examination of the experience of the ‘socialist countries’, and the last, a look at the SACP itself. Most refreshing is the candour and honesty with which many of the problems of ‘existing socialism’ are examined. Indeed, a few years ago no one in the SACP would have dared to cast such a critical light on the socialist countries. “Anti-Soviet,” “anti-Communist,” or “anti- Party” were the dismissive epithets reserved for those who did. We can but hope that the publication of this pamphlet spells the end of such practices. It is clear too that much of the heart-searching that persuaded Slovo to put pen to paper was occasioned by the harrowing events of the past twelve months, which culminated in the Romanian masses, in scenes reminiscent of the storming of the Winter Palace, storming the headquarters of the Communist Party of Roumania. It beggars the term “ironic” that scenarios many of us had imagined would be played out at the end of bourgeois rule in historical fact rang down the curtain on a ‘Communist’ dictatorship! We may expect that, just as in 1956 and 1968, there will flow from many pens the essays of disillusionment and despair written by ex- communists who have recently discovered the “sterling” qualities of late capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Consequences of Neoliberalism Jenny Andersson, Olivier Godechot
    Destabilizing Orders – Understanding the Consequences of Neoliberalism Jenny Andersson, Olivier Godechot To cite this version: Jenny Andersson, Olivier Godechot. Destabilizing Orders – Understanding the Consequences of Ne- oliberalism: Proceedings of the MaxPo Fifth-Anniversary Conference. Paris, January 12–13, 2018. 2018. hal-02180035 HAL Id: hal-02180035 https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02180035 Preprint submitted on 11 Jul 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. No. 18/1 maxpo discussion paper Destabilizing Orders – Understanding the Consequences of Neoliberalism Proceedings of the MaxPo Fifth-Anniversary Conference Paris, January 12–13, 2018 Edited by Jenny Andersson and Olivier Godechot Jenny Andersson, Olivier Godechot (eds.) Destabilizing Orders – Understanding the Consequences of Neoliberalism: Proceedings from the MaxPo Fifth-Anniversary Conference. Paris, January 12–13, 2018 MaxPo Discussion Paper 18/1 Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies May 2018 © 2018 by the author(s) About the editors Jenny Andersson is Co-Director at the Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies (MaxPo) and CNRS Research Professor at the Center for European Studies (CEE) in Paris. Email: [email protected] Olivier Godechot is Co-Director at the Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies (MaxPo) in Paris.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosa Luxemburg “The Accumulation of Capital”: East and West
    Rosa Luxemburg “The Accumulation of Capital” and China He Ping The Department of Philosophy, Wuhan University, China E-mail: [email protected] The greatest contribution of Rose Luxemburg’s “The Accumulation of Capital” is establishment of the unified worldwide diagram of the development of capitalism in the imperialist era, which Rose Luxemburg call total capitalism. According to this diagram, only finding the market in non-capitalist countries can west capitalism realizes its accumulation of capital so that the survival of non-capitalist countries, the formation of world market and boundless enlargement of consumption are the premise of constructing world system. In chapter XXVIII of “the Accumulation of Capital”, on “The Introduction of Commodity Economy”, she cited China for her examining. Lenin was against this diagram and stressed the important role of national states in constructing world system so that he pointed out the multiple diagram of the development of capitalism in the imperialist era. All these give me a chance to discuss some problems of the relation of China to world system in different field of vision. In my paper, I am going to begin with Luxemburg’s analysis of China, and then, probe into the significance and effect of national states in the China’s modernization by examining China of the twentieth century, finally combine the two-fold character of nation states with the theory and practices of China’s modernization to discuss Luxemburg’s concepts of world history in imperialist era, and evaluate Luxemburg’s theoretical contribution and its today’s development. I. Rosa Luxemburg’s Analysis of China In “The Historical Conditions of Accumulation”of “The Accumulation of Capital”, Luxemburg said: “Modern China presents a classical example of the ‘gentle’, ‘peace-loving’ practices of commodity exchange with backward countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Afterlives of Chinese Communism: Political Concepts from Mao to Xi
    AFTERLIVES OF CHINESE COMMUNISM AFTERLIVES OF CHINESE COMMUNISM POLITICAL CONCEPTS FROM MAO TO XI Edited by Christian Sorace, Ivan Franceschini, and Nicholas Loubere First published 2019 by ANU Press and Verso Books The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] Available to download for free at press.anu.edu.au ISBN (hardback): 9781788734790 ISBN (paperback): 9781788734769 ISBN (online): 9781760462499 WorldCat (print): 1085370489 WorldCat (online): 1085370850 DOI: 10.22459/ACC.2019 This title is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The full licence terms are available at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode Note on Visual Material All images in this publication have been fully accredited. As this is a non-commercial publication, certain images have been used under a Creative Commons licence. These images have been sourced from Flickr, Wikipedia Commons and the copyright owner of each original picture is acknowledged and indicated in the source information. Design concept and typesetting by Tommaso Facchin; Illustrations by Marc Verdugo Lopez. Cover design by No Ideas. Cover artwork by Marc Verdugo Lopez. Proofreading by Sharon Strange and Evyn Chesneau Papworth. This edition © 2019 ANU Press and Verso Books Table of Contents Introduction - Christian SORACE, Ivan FRANCESCHINI, and Nicholas LOUBERE 1 1. Aesthetics - Christian SORACE 11 2. Blood Lineage - YI Xiaocuo 17 3. Class Feeling - Haiyan LEE 23 4. Class Struggle - Alessandro RUSSO 29 5. Collectivism - GAO Mobo 37 6. Contradiction - Carlos ROJAS 43 7. Culture - DAI Jinhua 49 8. Cultural Revolution - Patricia M.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 9 : New Democracy and Cultural Revolution : Mao Zedong
    UNIT 9 : NEW DEMOCRACY AND CULTURAL REVOLUTION : MAO ZEDONG UNIT STRUCTURE 9.1 Learning Objectives 9.2 Introduction 9.3 New Democracy and Cultural Revolution of Mao Zedong 9.3.1 New Democracy 9.3.2 Cultural Revolution 9.4 Hundred Flowers Policy 9.5 Let Us Sum Up 9.6 Further Reading 9.7 Answers to Check Your Progress 9.8 Possible Questions 9.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES After going through this unit you will be able to- discuss Mao Zedong’s concepts of New Democracy and Cultural Revolution discuss Mao Zedong’s Hundred Flowers Policy 9.2 INTRODUCTION Maoism like Marxism and Leninism was one of the most debated subjects of the 20th century. Maoism is the teachings and formulations that were advanced by Mao Zedong. He is popularly known as Mao Tse Tung (1893-1976). On October 1, 1948, Mao Zedong proclaimed the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The PRC is a single-party state controlled by the Communist Party of China. In the subsequent years, Mao launched an extensive programme of land reforms and crushed all “counter- revolutionaries” who were perceived as enemies of the state Recent Political Theory (Block - 1) 107 Unit 9 New Democracy and Cultural Revolution - Mao Zedong Some of his works are “On Contradiction”, “On New Democracy”, etc. The difference between Maoism and Marxism is that Mao argued that, peasants should be the revolutionary class in Chinese society rather than the workers. 9.3 NEW DEMOCRACY AND CULTURAL REVOLUTION Mao like Karl Marx and Lenin was also strongly opposed to Capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • BY A. SOUCHY BARCELONA • SPAIN
    JULY 19, 1936 JULY 19, 19 3 7 s 1-N BY a. SOUCHY BARCELONA • SPAIN PUBLISHED BY LIBERTARIAN PUBLISHERS 45 WEST 17TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ANARCHIST FEDERATION OF AMERICA Price 5 Cents I PAIN is a puzzle to Europe. It is torn internally by the class strug­ § gle, and engaged in a war in which all the Fascist states and their followers of all races and nationalities are participating. To Europe, Spain is a source of concern which the League of Nations is trying vainly to patch. The war against the insurgent generals is only a new phase in the long process of her evolution. The misery of the masses and their ur­ gent need for. bread, freedom, and culture, and the revolutionary activity of the workers throughout Spain, were the main causes of the revolution. The conflict between the far reaching, social accom­ plishments of the workers and the growing opposition of the bour­ geoisie against the social revolution, was the motive for the tragic events which took place during the first week of May, in Barcelona and other parts of Catalonia. II How did the Revolution develop? In 1924 the dictatorship of General Primo de Rivera was pro­ claimed. The king, clergy, big land-owners, military men, and in­ dustrial and commercial barons were behind him. The dictatorship was aimed at the workers movement, particularly against the syndicalist and anarchist wing, and the Socialists, Democrats, Republicans, and the Separatists. Those opposed to the dictatorship, from the moder­ ate right to the extreme left, formed a united front against their common enemy.
    [Show full text]
  • By Matt Impink and Sheila Suess Kennedy Chapter One: the Questions and Why They Matter
    Giving Civics a Sporting Chance By Matt Impink and Sheila Suess Kennedy Chapter One: The Questions and Why They Matter This year, as every year, millions of children will spend time playing various sports, and developing their skills and knowl- edge of those sports. In 2008, in the United States, 69 percent of girls and 75 percent of boys participated in organized or team sports.1 Interest in sports crosses social and ethnic boundaries, and involves children and adults from all groups. The 2014 Super Bowl drew an average viewership of 111.5 million, and inspired 5.6 million people to send 25.3 million tweets. (President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address garnered only 33.5 million viewers.) Given these numbers, the amount of newsprint and television time devoted to sports, the popularity of sports bars and the ubiquity of sports talk, we think it’s safe to say that the American public exhibits a very high level of what we might call “sports literacy.” This book is about America’s very low level of civic literacy. Why can people quote football and base- ball statistics for hours, explain the most arcane rules governing sports from bowling to curling, and cite the performance history of even minor ath- letes, but then are unable to identify the Enlight- enment or the rights protected by the First Amendment? Why are people who can knowledgably discuss the business performance of major league sports franchises confused about the differences between capitalism and socialism? Why are fans who are able to predict the speed and trajectory of a pitcher’s fastball unable to distinguish between science and religion, or between a scientific theory and our conversational use of the word “theory” to mean “best guess”? This book considers how we have gotten to this point, and what it would take to make civics at least half as important to the American cultural experience as sports.
    [Show full text]
  • Destabilizing Orders – Understanding the Consequences of Neoliberalism
    No. 18/1 maxpo discussion paper Destabilizing Orders – Understanding the Consequences of Neoliberalism Proceedings of the MaxPo Fifth-Anniversary Conference Paris, January 12–13, 2018 Edited by Jenny Andersson and Olivier Godechot Jenny Andersson, Olivier Godechot (eds.) Destabilizing Orders – Understanding the Consequences of Neoliberalism: Proceedings from the MaxPo Fifth-Anniversary Conference. Paris, January 12–13, 2018 MaxPo Discussion Paper 18/1 Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies May 2018 © 2018 by the author(s) About the editors Jenny Andersson is Co-Director at the Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies (MaxPo) and CNRS Research Professor at the Center for European Studies (CEE) in Paris. Email: [email protected] Olivier Godechot is Co-Director at the Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies (MaxPo) in Paris. He is CNRS research fellow, affiliated with the Observatoire sociologique du changement, and holder of the AXA-Sciences Po Chair of Economic Sociology. Email: [email protected] How to cite this paper Andersson, Jenny, and Olivier Godechot (eds.). 2018. ”Destabilizing Orders – Understanding the Consequences of Neoliberalism.” Proceedings from the MaxPo Fifth-Anniversary Conference. Paris, January 11–12, 2018. MaxPo Discussion Paper 18/1. Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies, Paris. MaxPo Discussion Paper ISSN 2196-6508 (Print) ISSN 2197-3075 (Internet) Editorial Board Jenny Andersson (Sciences Po, CEE–CNRS) Olivier Godechot (MaxPo and Sciences Po, OSC–CNRS) Colin Hay (Sciences Po, CEE) Jeanne Lazarus (Sciences Po, CSO–CNRS) Cornelia Woll (MaxPo and Sciences Po) Submission Inquiries Contact the editors at [email protected] Downloads www.maxpo.eu Go to Publications Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies Sciences Po | 27 rue Saint-Guillaume | 75337 Paris Cedex 07 | France Tel.
    [Show full text]