In the political report for the 2-milllion-strong-COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) 2009 congress, prepared by Zweli Vavi (long text, which specifically cited Black Flame), there are a few "points of interest":
"... Marx has given us the tools to understand society but not a blueprint. It falls on our shoulders ... to Build Marxism. In carrying out this task we must be open-minded and grasp what is useful in critiques of Marx from both the right and the left ...For example, the communitarian anarchist movement, critique of classical Marxism on the grounds that is has latent features of authoritarianism, has to be engaged. Anarchists by definition are anti-authority and hierarchy. They make a compelling argument that hierarchical organisations or societies like capitalism tend to reproduce rather than eliminate inequality ...As socialists anchored in the Congress and Comintern tradition we differ with some of the theoretical, strategy and tactics of the Troskyites and Anarcho-Syndicalists, but it will be folly to ignore some of their valuable critique of bureaucratic socialism ..."
http://www.cosatu.org.za/show.php?include=docs/reports/2009/index.html&ID=2408&cat=Congress
In the political report for the 2-milllion-strong-COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) 2009 congress, prepared by Zweli Vavi (long text, which specifically cited Black Flame), there are a few "points of interest":
... The project of building Marxism must also engage openly with critiques from the right and the left of socialist theory and practice. It does not mean accepting these views on face value but to evaluate what is useful and can enrich our theory in contemporary society.
Thus Marx has given us the tools to understand society but not a blueprint. It falls on our shoulders, using the tools developed by Marx, to scientifically uncover the nature of global capitalism and how it can be transformed. That is what it means to Build Marxism. In carrying out this task we must be open-minded and grasp what is useful in critiques of Marx from both the right and the left. It is a pointless exercise to be stuck in debates between Marx and his contemporaries or between the Bolsheviks; if in the end we do not add anything new to advance the theory of Marxism. It must be borne in mind that even the nature of capitalism that Marx studied has undergone profound changes in the last hundred years.
For example, the communitarian anarchist movement, critique of classical Marxism on the grounds that is has latent features of authoritarianism, has to be engaged. Anarchists by definition are anti-authority and hierarchy. They make a compelling argument that hierarchical organisations or societies like capitalism tend to reproduce rather than eliminate inequality. Further, the anarchist critique of the Soviet Union as state capitalism in which a 'coordinator class' of bureaucrats has replaced the bourgeoisie to exploit the working classes challenges us to think about how working class democracy is practiced and enriched in a post-capitalist society. That is, it cannot be taken for granted that working people will effectively be in control without a conscious and deliberate effort.
"... Marx has given us the tools to understand society but not a blueprint. It falls on our shoulders ... to Build Marxism. In carrying out this task we must be open-minded and grasp what is useful in critiques of Marx from both the right and the left ...For example, the communitarian anarchist movement, critique of classical Marxism on the grounds that is has latent features of authoritarianism, has to be engaged. Anarchists by definition are anti-authority and hierarchy. They make a compelling argument that hierarchical organisations or societies like capitalism tend to reproduce rather than eliminate inequality ...As socialists anchored in the Congress and Comintern tradition we differ with some of the theoretical, strategy and tactics of the Troskyites and Anarcho-Syndicalists, but it will be folly to ignore some of their valuable critique of bureaucratic socialism ..."
http://www.cosatu.org.za/show.php?include=docs/reports/2009/index.html&ID=2408&cat=Congress
In the political report for the 2-milllion-strong-COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) 2009 congress, prepared by Zweli Vavi (long text, which specifically cited Black Flame), there are a few "points of interest":
... The project of building Marxism must also engage openly with critiques from the right and the left of socialist theory and practice. It does not mean accepting these views on face value but to evaluate what is useful and can enrich our theory in contemporary society.
Thus Marx has given us the tools to understand society but not a blueprint. It falls on our shoulders, using the tools developed by Marx, to scientifically uncover the nature of global capitalism and how it can be transformed. That is what it means to Build Marxism. In carrying out this task we must be open-minded and grasp what is useful in critiques of Marx from both the right and the left. It is a pointless exercise to be stuck in debates between Marx and his contemporaries or between the Bolsheviks; if in the end we do not add anything new to advance the theory of Marxism. It must be borne in mind that even the nature of capitalism that Marx studied has undergone profound changes in the last hundred years.
For example, the communitarian anarchist movement, critique of classical Marxism on the grounds that is has latent features of authoritarianism, has to be engaged. Anarchists by definition are anti-authority and hierarchy. They make a compelling argument that hierarchical organisations or societies like capitalism tend to reproduce rather than eliminate inequality. Further, the anarchist critique of the Soviet Union as state capitalism in which a 'coordinator class' of bureaucrats has replaced the bourgeoisie to exploit the working classes challenges us to think about how working class democracy is practiced and enriched in a post-capitalist society. That is, it cannot be taken for granted that working people will effectively be in control without a conscious and deliberate effort.
This anarchist critique is directed at two canons of the communist movement, namely 'vanguardism' and its relationship to proletarian democracy. Rosa Luxembourg also echoed similar concerns regarding the latent authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks. We can spend time explaining the contingencies that led to authoritarianism of the Soviet Union but this is not useful in taking forward the struggle for socialism. We must bother ourselves with questions of how not to repeat this negative experience of the Soviet political system.
An attack from the Trotskyites is also worth engaging in so far as revolutionary strategy is concerned ...
The anarchists, especially the collectivist or communitarian anarchist like Bukunin and Kropotkin, on the other hand, were wary of a political system based on hierarchical relations and division of labour. They argued that a 'class of coordinators' whether under capitalism or socialism tends to monopolise power and become a self-serving bureaucracy, which will expand and defend its privilege. In the worst case scenario democracy is a hollow affair because the bureaucracy is better informed than the rest of the people. The people, aware of their limitation will always defer and concur with the bureaucrats thus becoming co-conspirators in their own enslavement and marginalisation. The anarchist antidote to hierarchical political relations was the decentralisation of power to self-managed workers' council and consumer councils, under guidance by national or international council that is democratically elected.6
As socialists anchored in the Congress and Comintern tradition we differ with some of the theoretical, strategy and tactics of the Troskyites and Anarcho-Syndicalists, but it will be folly to ignore some of their valuable critique of bureaucratic socialism. As we confront the challenge of developing a vision for socialism in the 21st century we cannot sweep these critiques under the carpet. While we retain most of the communist canon including the notions of vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, we must however, concretely define how workers will be empowered to be their own liberators and run the post-capitalist society. If we postpone these issues to a mythical future, the likelihood is that we may repeat the mistakes of the Bolsheviks. In fact acknowledging what the Troskyites and Anarcho-Syndicalists are saying will actually lay the bases for the unity of the left in our country....
6) For further reading of the anarchist views refer to Michael Albert's Parecon: Life After Capitalism, Robert Knowles, Political Economy from below: communitarian anarchism as a neglected discourse in the histories of economic thought, John Bekken's Kropotkin's Anarchist Critique of Capitalism, or Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt's Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism
An attack from the Trotskyites is also worth engaging in so far as revolutionary strategy is concerned ...
The anarchists, especially the collectivist or communitarian anarchist like Bukunin and Kropotkin, on the other hand, were wary of a political system based on hierarchical relations and division of labour. They argued that a 'class of coordinators' whether under capitalism or socialism tends to monopolise power and become a self-serving bureaucracy, which will expand and defend its privilege. In the worst case scenario democracy is a hollow affair because the bureaucracy is better informed than the rest of the people. The people, aware of their limitation will always defer and concur with the bureaucrats thus becoming co-conspirators in their own enslavement and marginalisation. The anarchist antidote to hierarchical political relations was the decentralisation of power to self-managed workers' council and consumer councils, under guidance by national or international council that is democratically elected.6
As socialists anchored in the Congress and Comintern tradition we differ with some of the theoretical, strategy and tactics of the Troskyites and Anarcho-Syndicalists, but it will be folly to ignore some of their valuable critique of bureaucratic socialism. As we confront the challenge of developing a vision for socialism in the 21st century we cannot sweep these critiques under the carpet. While we retain most of the communist canon including the notions of vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, we must however, concretely define how workers will be empowered to be their own liberators and run the post-capitalist society. If we postpone these issues to a mythical future, the likelihood is that we may repeat the mistakes of the Bolsheviks. In fact acknowledging what the Troskyites and Anarcho-Syndicalists are saying will actually lay the bases for the unity of the left in our country....
6) For further reading of the anarchist views refer to Michael Albert's Parecon: Life After Capitalism, Robert Knowles, Political Economy from below: communitarian anarchism as a neglected discourse in the histories of economic thought, John Bekken's Kropotkin's Anarchist Critique of Capitalism, or Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt's Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism
No comments:
Post a Comment