|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Rediscovering the Socialism in Anarchism |
|||
|
All too often class-struggle anarchist literature is out of date. The bulk of it was written over 50 years ago. Classics like Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread (1892) and Alexander Berkman's What is Communist Anarchism? (1928) are good expositions of libertarian communism, but often seem quaint and irrelevant to the conditions of today. Thankfully, Bookchin's Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left may be the first leftist anarchist book which presents a reasonably coherent and revolutionary anti-capitalist vision which is relevant to the here and now for many, many years.
|
CONTENTS |
||
CAPITALISM TRIUMPHANT, SOCIALISM SUBVERSIVEIn an important, well argued and easy to read book, Bookchin forcefully notes the obvious: we have seen the triumph of capital since the 1980s; this has resulted in increasing working hours, decreasing pay packets, increasing alienation, mass unemployment and poverty, increasing misery, and the brink of an ecological crisis. This makes a revolutionary anti-capitalist politics all the more relevant and urgent. Bookchin notes that only through a libertarian communist revolution can we get rid of capitalism and the misery it produces. Such a revolution does not involve replacing the capitalists with a new set of bosses as in the USSR or China. It does involve the complete destruction of the class system and the state, and its replacement by a decentralised federation of ultra-democratic workers' councils and neighbourhood councils. Yet in a time when capitalism is encroaching upon almost every aspect of life, Bookchin ironically claims that the left today has little understanding of capitalism. This can be seen in the current "anti-capitalist" movement, which often confuses the ideology of the free market with capitalism as a whole. To Bookchin, who has been involved in revolutionary leftist politics since the 1930s, the tradition of revolutionary socialism seems lost. The book is somewhat of a semi-biography, with Bookchin interviewed about his experiences as a radical since the 1930s (in the 1930s he was a Stalinist, then a Trotskyist, before moving to anarchism in the 1950s). In comparison to the left of the 1930s, Bookchin looks with dismay at the current left, and notes that many leftists don't even understand what capitalism is, how it operates and how to get rid of it. Bookchin essentially argues we need to rediscover socialism, that is, libertarian socialism. Anarchists need to also rediscover the socialism in anarchism. Many of the basic concepts of the leftist anarchist tradition have been lost. For example, many anarchists now view anarchism as a form of liberalism rather than socialism and completely distrust any talk of class. Thus means, as Bookchin notes, anarchism is losing its traditional left-wing core, and thus is fast becoming an unthreatening version of liberalism with a bourgeois emphasis on the freedom of the individual, on personal autonomy (a notion that suits capitalists just fine). "Anti-statism isn't enough. Many reactionaries and even corporate bandits are against state intervention too. In my view, unless socialism is an integral part of anarchism, then anarchism becomes self-indulgence. Anarchists who aren't socialists might as well just call themselves individualists." (p. 125). So Bookchin claims what is sorely needed is a serious, coherent, organised, revolutionary anarchist left which is well-versed in anarchist socialist theory.
THE COMMUNE OF COMMUNES GONE WRONG....
| |||
 The book is not perfect. It's often coloured by unnecessary personal grudges, especially the article "Whither anarchism?". It would have been far more interesting if Bookchin were interviewed by (say) a critical left-wing revolutionary anarchist rather than a sympathetic interviewer. But the major weaknesses of Bookchin are his belief in "libertarian municipalism" and his vanguardism. Bookchin's libertarian municipalism is a fundamental misinterpretation of the communal dimension of anarchist communism. Anarchist communists claim that the new society would be composed of a "commune of communes". This doesn't mean middle-class hippies experiencing temporary adventures in poverty, but a network of self-governing communities. Local neighbourhoods and their services would be run by democratically elected neighbourhood councils (whilst workplaces would be run by the workers themselves through workers' councils). These councils would have open meetings which anybody could attend, regular elections which would elect temporary delegates who could be recalled at any instant. These neighbourhood councils have, along with workers' councils, been a feature of all working class revolutions over the last century. Bookchin has twisted this revolutionary approach by forming a reformist, leftist party with a green tinge for local body elections. His libertarian municipalism is not anarchist because it involves people surrendering control over their lives to a bunch of representatives, rather trying to establish direct democracy. Bookchin is not consistent in his opposition to the state: local government is part of the state. If Bookchin's leftist green party got into power at local government level, no matter how well intentioned, it would sell-out its supporters just as the German Greens have. Why doesn't Bookchin apply his criticisms of the dismal failure of national Green Parties around the world to establish "non-party parties" to his own local body Green Party?
VANGUARDISMBookchin also claims we need an organised vanguard to lead a revolution. This is a very touchy issue. Bookchin claims such an organisation, if it avoids the Leninist centralised model of leadership and retains its internal democracy, will not develop into an institutionalised minority in power after the revolution. This argument is unconvincing. Any leadership, anarchist included, is in a position of power, and power corrupts, as we saw with the leadership of the FAI and CNT in revolutionary Spain in 1936. Whilst a revolution does need a balance between spontaneity and organisation, instinct and reason, it doesn't need a vanguard imposing its vision from above on the masses. Despite its support for vanguardism and a reformist local body party, Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left is important because it points out the obvious: that what is relevant now is leftist anarchism. And it's about time someone pointed this out. The book is well worth reading by anyone interested in the future of the left and leftist anarchism.
|
 |
||
Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left, Interviews and Essays 1993-1998, by Murray Bookchin.