A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage)
archives of old posts
The last 100 posts, according
The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours |
of past 30 days |
of 2002 |
of 2003 |
of 2004 |
of 2005 |
of 2006 |
of 2007 |
of 2008 |
of 2009 |
of 2010 |
of 2011 |
Syndication Of A-Infos - including
RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
(en) Black Rose Anarchist Federation - Burlington: ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER HATCHET JOB ON ANARCHISM
Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:48:12 +0200
Is it just me, or has the quality of critiques of anarchism been getting worse lately?
---- Barnard Professor Sheri Berman’s contribution to Dissent’s Fall 2015 issue (“No
Cheers for Anarchism”) makes it clear she holds anarchism — and anarchists — in contempt.
I looked for, but sadly could not find, a well-argued reason why. Her essay is plagued by
the kind of scattershot superficial analysis, innuendo, and guilt-by-association better
suited to a publication like the Weekly Standard than such a storied journal of the left.
---- Berman’s trouble begins when she asserts a fundamental similarity between anarchists
and libertarians: ---- Anarchists dream of a world without states, traditional political
organizations, or any other structures that restrict individual freedom. Because they
share such beliefs and goals with libertarians, anarchists are easily confused with them.
In the American context, at least, the main distinction between the two concerns
capitalism: anarchists view it as inherently coercive, while libertarians venerate it as
the embodiment and guardian of individual rights. This has led the former to be viewed as
left wing and the latter as right wing, but in reality, anarchists differ dramatically
from other sectors of the modern left (just as libertarians differ dramatically from
traditional conservatives and other factions of the modern right).
While it’s true that American libertarians essentially stole their appellation from us
(“libertarian” at least in Europe still largely means anarchist), they sadly did not deign
to import any of our ideas. Anarchist analysis is fundamentally social and structural, and
is the common thread that links our opposition to capitalism and the state, our resistance
to all forms of oppression and domination, and our proposal of common ownership of wealth
and production through direct democracy. Libertarians, on the other hand, construct their
world starting with the atomized individual, resting on a foundation of modern property
rights: it is a thoroughly reactionary ideology.
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century anarchism’s rejection of
traditional political organizations and activity led to its involvement in various
uprisings and rebellions, the most important of which was the Paris Commune.
It is strange to see Berman assert that anarchists during that time rejected “traditional
political organizations and activity.” I can only assume she means electoral and party
politics, which given the time period were anything but traditional. Indeed, Europe has a
much longer history of strikes, revolts, and revolutions than of parliaments. Modern
European political parties only kicked off in earnest post-1848 while universal suffrage
took even longer. And while she claims anarchism is a very different animal from its
brethren on the left, anarchists made up a significant portion of the First International,
and have joined arms with their fellow socialists in barricades, picket lines, and
revolutions ever since.
Odder still, considering how few actual anarchists were there, is Berman’s implication
that the Paris Commune was an “anarchist activity”:
Despite their often spectacular nature, anarchist activities were almost uniformly
unsuccessful. For example, the Paris Commune’s lack of internal organization, leadership,
or agreed-upon goals left it prone to infighting and vulnerable to counter-attack; it was
brutally crushed by the forces of counter-revolution.
Given that both Marxists and anarchists spoke highly of the Commune, one suspects there is
more to it than Berman lets on. While she pins the blame on a “lack of internal
organization, leadership, or agreed-upon goals,” one of the anarchist critiques of the
Commune is that while there was plenty of internal organization, it was hobbled by its
centralized and bureaucratic nature. As Kropotkin put it:
But in 1871 the people of Paris, which had overthrown so many governments, was only
involved in its first attempt at revolt against the governmental system itself: it
submitted to governmental fetichism and gave itself a government. We know the consequence.
It sent its devoted sons to the Hotel-de-Ville. Indeed, immobilised there by fetters of
red tape, forced to discuss when action was needed, and losing the sensitivity that comes
from continued contact with the masses, they saw themselves reduced to impotence.
Paralysed by their distancing from the revolutionary centre — the people — they themselves
paralysed the popular initiative.
Berman then claims that the fin-de-siecle left abandoned anarchism for political parties
and trade unions, neglecting to mention that a large majority of anarchists at that time
were already moving into the labor movement. While many socialist parties at the time saw
trade unions as little more than party recruiting grounds and vehicles for turf wars with
other socialists, anarchists placed labor struggles at the heart of revolutionary strategy
(exemplified by the prominent rise of anarcho-syndicalism across Europe and Latin America).
Berman correctly notes that after World War I “socialists played a significant role” in
governments across Europe:
During the interwar period socialist parties became the bulwarks of democracy in many
parts of Europe. Defending democracy meant that socialists needed to win elections and
attract the support of the majority, which would in turn require compromises, trade-offs
and patience—none of which appealed to anarchists.
While socialists in power were quite successful at breaking strikes and attacking popular
movements on their left, they failed at what was possibly their most important task:
heading off the rise of nationalism and fascism. The world paid dearly for that failure.
In Spain it was the election of a social democrat-led coalition, not anarchist agitation
(as Berman alleges), that spurred Franco’s coup. Were it not for the immediate actions
taken by the UGT and anarchist-led CNT trade unions to arm and mobilize the population,
against a backdrop of paralysis on the part of the government, Franco’s victory likely
would have been nearly instantaneous.
Similarly, Berman’s analysis of the 1960s is painfully incomplete. Claiming the post-1945
social democratic order “undergirded an unprecedented period of consolidated democracy,
economic growth, and social stability in Europe and the West,” she neglects to mention the
mountains of stolen resources and millions of bodies across Asia and Africa on which that
order depended. Nor does she mention that the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist project was
central to the radical left of the 1960s, simply stating that “many anarchist-influenced
‘New Left’ and counter-culture movements (including punk and the Yippies in the United
States, and squatters movements in many European cities) attack[ed] the reigning
‘bourgeois, capitalist’ order.” The only time Berman bothers to reach outside the comforts
of the West is for a few bogeymen:
Some praised the likes of Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, and Fidel Castro—hardly icons of
freedom—and showed scorn for public opinion and for the “masses” who didn’t share their
vision of the world.
Trying to hang those three around anarchism’s neck — none of whom were remotely anarchist,
and in the case of Castro, actively jailed and murdered Cuban anarchists? The mind boggles.
In the post-Cold War era, anarchism has emerged as arguably the most energetic current on
the left in the U.S. Berman dismisses Occupy Wall Street as a flash in the pan, little
more than “theatrics” with “ephemeral impact.” While neither OWS nor the many successful
campaigns and movements it birthed were majority anarchist, their tools, sensibilities and
outlook drew heavily from that tradition. And too many progressives forget that over the
course of a few months, OWS dramatically changed the bounds of mainstream economic and
political debate (remember the summer preceding it, when matters of wealth inequality and
Wall Street were permanently sidelined to debt ceilings and austerity packages?). That’s
something for which the Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanderses of the world should thank
their friendly neighborhood anarchist.
Berman reaches peak superficiality as she concludes her essay by way of former congressman
Barney Frank, a man whose blinkered conception of social change can only be measured in
angry letters and phone calls to the Capitol switchboard:
In his recent book, Barney Frank, for example, contrasted the National Rifle Association’s
persistent grassroots organizing and resultant ability to mobilize supporters to flood
lawmakers’ offices with letters and calls and to vote as a bloc, with the inclination of
many on the left to “hold public demonstrations, in which like-minded people gather to
reassure each other of their beliefs.” Frank goes on to argue that “if you care deeply
about an issue and are engaged in group activity on its behalf that is fun and inspiring
and heightens your sense of solidarity with others . . . you are most certainly not doing
your cause any good.”
There’s quite a bit of confusion here, not least of which is the implication that social
movements (let alone anarchist-inspired ones) desire the same scope and scale of change
that the NRA does. I for one am glad that so many movements reject the Berman-Frank model
of social change. From immigrant rights (in both the Americas and Europe) to service
sector unionization, from campaigns against fossil fuel projects to the 2012 Québec
student strike, anarchists are at the forefront and in the trenches, helping shape
analysis and strategy. Instead of petitioning their elected officials, they are doing what
every successful movement has done: changing the reality on the ground so starkly and
fundamentally that political and economic elites are forced to accommodate.
Ultimately, the shadow that hangs over Berman’s entire essay is cast not by anarchism, but
by the colossal wreckage of social democracy.
Berman approvingly quotes François Mitterand’s denunciation of Paris protesters in May
1968: “what a mish-mash of quasi-Marxism, what hotch-potch, what confusion.” While she
contents to caricature one of the most important events of the twentieth century, the
quote much more accurately describes Mitterand’s own panicked and confused descent into
austerity when faced with all the terrible demands of capital but none of the workers and
youth on the streets to force him to live up to his socialist promises.
For decades now, social democratic parties across the West have taken up the mantle of
hatchet men for the interests of capital. It is austerity imposed by the “left” that cuts
deepest and is hardest to oppose. This slow self-immolation by socialist parties,
stretching from London to Athens and Paris to Berlin, reminds us that we can’t administer
our way out of the horrors of capitalism. While those on the electoral left — the true
starry-eyed utopians — propose yet another round of minor fixes to capitalism’s
foundational deformities, anarchists and our allies will keep fighting for and building a
liberated world, one that needs neither capitalists nor their reluctant stewards.
Cross-posted from ForStudentPower.org
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-Infos Information Center