Revolution Is More Than a Word: 23 Theses on Anarchism

12 Pages·2017·0.08 MB·English

by  Gabriel Kuhn

TheAnarchistLibrary
Anti-Copyright
Revolution Is More Than a
Word
23ThesesonAnarchism
Alpine Anarchist Productions
AlpineAnarchistProductions
RevolutionIsMoreThanaWord
23ThesesonAnarchism
May2016
Retrievedonmarch32017from
http://www.alpineanarchist.org/r_twenty-three_theses.html
theanarchistlibrary.org May 2016

Contents
Intro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Whatisanarchism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Anarchism and the Left: Social democracy and
Leninism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Anarchismandrevolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Anarchism’sproblemstoday . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Whatneedstobedone? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3

23. Pursuing revolution for revolution’s sake is pointless. Intro
The only thing justifying a revolution is that it makes
people’slivesbetter.Thismustbereflectedineverything Sincetheturnofthemillennium,anarchismhasexperienced
revolutionariesdo. astrongupswing.Inawidelyread2004articlebyDavidGrae-
berandAndrejGrubačić,itwasannouncedasthe“revolution-
AAP ary movement of the twenty-first century”, and in a recent
(May2016) book on the Occupy Wall Street movement, titled Translating
Anarchy and based on interviews with numerous organizers,
author Mark Bray contests that anarchist ideas were the driv-
ing ideological force behind it. Meanwhile, anarchist projects
(journals,bookfairs,organizinggroups)haveincreasedsignifi-
cantlyoverthepasttwentyyears.Thisisallgreatnews.
At the same time, neoliberalism rules supreme, the gaps
between the rich and the poor grow wider by the day, wars
are raging, surveillance has surpassed Orwellian levels, and
nothing seems able to stop the ecological destruction of the
world as we know it. If the current order is challenged in any
significant way, the agents are either religious fundamental-
ists, neofascists, or, in the best case, left-wing movements
revolving around charismatic leaders and populist parties.
Evenifanarchistsliketoclaimanarchistelementsinuprisings,
fromCairo’sTahrirSquaretothestreetsofFerguson,Missouri,
itisquestionablewhetherself-declaredanarchistsreallyhave
played any significant role in these events. In short, despite
the mentioned upswing, anarchism appears as marginalized
as ever when it comes to the grand scale of things. In light of
this, it seems as good a time as any to reflect on anarchism’s
roleintheoverallpoliticalarenaandtoexamineitsstrengths
andweaknesses.
The contents of this text are presented in a concise and
straightforward manner, which makes generalizations in-
evitable. They are based on experiences in Western and
NorthernEurope;readerswillhavetodecidehowmuchthese
experiences match their own and how relevant they are for
thescenestheythemselvesareactivein.
24 5
What is anarchism? 20. So-calledallypoliticscanserveasaguidingprinciplefor
anarchistsinvolvedinsocialstrugglescarriedbyothers,
In postmodern times, it has become popular to forgo defi- but the concept needs to be understood right. To mind-
nitions, as they supposedly put our thoughts into cages. This lessly say yes to what someone else demands of you is
isa cop-out.It isself-evidentthatdefinitions arebuttools for self-abnegation and has nothing to do with radicalism.
communication and can’t lay claim on capturing the essence Besides, no one individual or group ever represents a
ofagivenphenomenon.Apracticaldefinitionisbasedoncer- community,sowecanneversurrenderourownrespon-
taincriteria:theoriginofatermandetymologicalaspects,its sibilitytomakedecisionsbyreferringtosomeoneelse’s
usageandchangeofmeaningovertime,andterminologicalco- authority. We need to be accountable for the decisions
herencewithinthelanguagesystemweareusing.Thefollow- we make. It can be mandatory to accept others’ leader-
ingworkingdefinitionofanarchismoughttobeunderstoodin shipinstruggle,butwealwaysneedtocriticallyengage
thatway. withtheminordertocollectivelybringthestrugglefor-
Anarchism is, first, the attempt to establish an egalitarian ward.
societythatallowsforthefreestdevelopmentofitsindividual
memberspossible.Theegalitarianismisthenecessaryprecon- 21. We need serious discussions about the possibilities and
ditionforthisfreedevelopmentbeingattainableforeveryone impossibilitiesofarmedstruggle;notachildishromanti-
andnotjustachosenfew.Itiscurtailedonlybyinhibitingthe cizationofriotingorcrime,butaninvestigationintohow
free development of others; clear boundaries can’t be drawn power is distributed and maintained, and how this can
(wheredoes one’sfreedom end and another one’sbegin?) but be challenged militantly, which, in most cases of deep-
thisdoesnotmeanthattheycan’tbenegotiated. ened social conflict, will be necessary. Furthermore, if
Sofar,thisdefinitiondoesn’tstrayfarfromtheMarxistidea weare really serious about revolution, we cannot make
of communism. The difference lies in its second part, namely thearmyandthepolicetheperpetualenemy.Almostall
the belief that the establishment of an egalitarian society en- revolutions were reliant on bringing parts of the army
ablingfreeindividualdevelopmentisdependentonpoliticalac- andthepoliceintotheirranks,andthemilitaryoptions
torsimplementingtheessentialvaluesofsuchasocietyimme- ofguerrillagroupsaredecreasingdrasticallyintimesof
diately,intheirwaysoforganizing,living,andfighting.Today, high-techwarfare.Thisisarealityweneedtodealwith,
this is often called “prefigurative” politics. It implies that no nomatterhowuncomfortableitis.
dictatorshipoftheproletariat,nobenevolentleaders,no well-
22. We need to reconsider economic compensation. DIY
meaning vanguards can pave the way to the society desired;
culture is formidable in preserving independence, en-
thepeoplehavetodothisthemselves.Thepeoplealsoneedto
couraging creativity, and nurturing resourcefulness.
developthestructuresnecessarytodefendandpreservesucha
However, once the boundary to self-exploitation has
society.Self-management,mutualaid,horizontalorganization,
been crossed, it is almost exclusively middle-class
andthefightagainstallformsofoppressionarekeyprinciples
folks (predominantly male, predominantly white) who
ofanarchism.
remain.
6 23
within the Left needs to go, and anarchists have to do Theoriginofanarchismasaself-definedpoliticalmovement
theirpart. dates back to the social question in mid-nineteenth-century
Europe. Anarchists were part of the International Working-
17. ManyanarchistsassociatecadresexclusivelywithLenin-
men’s Association, better known as the First International,
istpolitics.Thisisunfortunate.Essentially,acadreisbut
together with the political forces that would later turn into
a full-time organizer, and there’s a difference between socialdemocratsontheonehandandLeninistsontheother.1
afull-timeorganizerandaweekendactivist.Cadresde-
We consider this origin important and see anarchism as part
servenoprivilegesbuttheirexperiencesanddedication
of the left-wing tradition. We are opposed to declaring anar-
need to be recognized — not for their own sake but for
chisma“philosophy”,an“ethic”,a“principle”,ora“wayoflife”
the sake of the movement. Cadres also need to prepare
rather than a political movement. An existential attitude is
forrevolutionarysituations,thelackofwhichhasbeen
onething;organizingforpoliticalchangeisanother.Without
oneofanarchism’sbiggesthistoricalweaknesses.
properorganizing,anarchismiseasilyreducedtoanobleidea,
reflecting religion or hipsterism more than political ambition.
18. Stubbornly avoiding discussions about leadership hurts
Atthesametime,anarchismisnotjustantiauthoritarianclass
theanarchistmovement.Therearealwaysleadersinso-
struggle. It is broader and includes activities that range from
cialgroups,whetheryouusethenameornot.Onlywhen
setting up social centers to deconstructing gender norms to
thisisacknowledgedcantheauthoritarianandexploita-
conceiving alternative forms of transportation. Anarchism’s
tiveaspectsofleadershipbekeptatbay.Otherwise,they
prefigurative dimension has always included questions that
will work in non-transparent and unaccountable ways,
didn’t fit narrow definitions of the Left: dietary, sexual, and
whichischaracteristicofmanyanarchistgroups.
spiritualconcernsaswellasmattersofpersonalethics.
19. We must be aware of anarchism’s origins. Anarchism
holdsnomonopolyonantiauthoritarianthought,which,
invariousshapesandforms,canbefoundacrossallcul- 1Wemeanttosidestepfootnotesinthistextbutfoundaquickexpla-
tures and ages. Yet, anarchism as a self-professed polit- nationofhowweusetheterms“socialdemocracy”,“Leninism”,and“Marx-
ism”unavoidable.WhileanarchismsplitfromMarxistcurrentswithinthe
ical movement is a product of the socio-political con-
Leftearlyon(theexpulsionofMikhailBakuninandJamesGuillaumefrom
ditions of nineteenth-century Europe. This has cultural
the First International’s 1872 congress in The Hague is often regarded as
implicationsthatcharacterizethemovementtothisday apivotalmoment),thesplitbetweenreformistsocialdemocratsandrevo-
and prevent it from spreading the way most anarchists lutionaryLeninistsonlyoccurredwiththeRussianRevolutionof1917.At
thetime,bothcurrentswerestillconsideredMarxistandcommittedtothe
wouldlikeitto.Theanswerisnottoclaimthatallantiau-
creationofasocialistsociety.Inthesocialdemocraticmovement,thisideo-
thoritariancurrentsareessentially“anarchist”(which,in
logicalorientationquicklyfadedamidstparliamentaryrealitiesand,bythe
theworstcase,isaformofcolonialco-optation;ifpeople 1930s,ithaddisappearedfrombasicallyallsocialdemocraticpartyconstitu-
choosenottousethename“anarchism”fortheirpolitics, tions.Today’sself-titledsocialdemocraticpartiesareoutoftouchwiththis
historyandpursueneoliberalpoliticswithawhiffofKeynesianism.Wedo
theyhaveareason).Theanswerisratherforanarchists
notrefertothesepartieswhenwespeakof“socialdemocracy”inthistext
to prove that they are worthy collaborators in a global
buttoatraditionofearnestMarxistpoliticswithintherealmofparliamen-
struggleforliberation. tarianism.Some,albeitfew,leftistpartiestodaycontinuethistradition.
22 7
Anarchism and the Left: Social democracy 14. The importance of individual qualities must be taken
and Leninism seriously. If we reject top-down mechanisms to ensure
that things get done, people must be committed to
AsapoliticalmovementthathistoricallybelongstotheLeft, doingthemthemselves.Theanarchistrealityisfarfrom
the relationship between anarchism and social democracy as this. Many anarchists only do things when they “feel
wellasLeninismisofimportance.Weoughttorememberthat inspired to”; many have all sorts of opinions about
theultimategoal—astatelessandclasslesssocietyguarantee- what others should do without ever doing anything
ing the free development of all — was originally the same for themselves; many are unreliable and irresponsible,
allthreecurrents. lovingtodenouncethosecallingthemontheirconduct
Often, the three currents are characterized as left (social as “authoritarians”; many use meetings for egocentric
democracy), radical left (Leninism), and ultra left (anarchism). babble rather than sensible decision-making. If these
We think this is misleading. We should rather think of a tendencies prevail, there is no hope for anarchism to
triangle where each current is equally far away from the everbecomearevolutionarymovement.
other. While anarchism and Leninism share a revolutionary
15. There needs to be a new synthesis in anarchism. Peo-
stance, and Leninism and social democracy Marxist roots,
ple with different focuses — the workplace, patriarchy,
anarchism and social democracy both reject the dictatorship
militarism, and so forth — need to work together, unite
of the proletariat. Anarchism is as close to social democracy
aroundasharedsetofprinciples,andagreeonacommon
asitistoLeninism,andviceversa.
strategy in which their different tactics are coordinated
The major criticisms levied at anarchism from Marxist
inthemostbeneficialway.Exclusiveclaimstoanarchist
ideologues (social democratic or Leninist) are: a) anarchism
representation do everyone harm, the respective group
is naïve, that is, it has an idealized understanding of human
included.
nature and social organization; b) anarchism is reckless, that
is, it has no understanding of how to bring about political 16. Anarchists need to understand the limits of anarchists
change and therefore encourages heedless action that, in the politics.Dependingonthegoalsofaspecificstruggle,a
worst case, allows reactionary forces to prevail; c) anarchism social democratic or Leninist approach might be more
is petty-bourgeois, that is, it is so much concerned with appropriate. Defending the welfare state is a reformist
individuallibertythatitdisregardssocialjustice. struggle, and if anarchists deem it worthwhile, they
Some of this criticism is valid, but it only concerns certain might be most effective as extra-parliamentary support
tendencies within anarchism. Overall, the anarchist under- troops to social democratic efforts. Likewise, Indian
standing of human nature was, in fact, much more nuanced farmersmightconsideraprotractedpeople’swar—and
than that of other left-wing currents (for example, regarding therefore Leninism in its Maoist variety — the most
thepsychologyofpower).Intermsofbringingaboutpolitical promising response to the state repression they are fac-
change, some anarchist actions might have been reckless but ing; if anarchists want to support these farmers, they’ll
most have been well-measured and thought-through. And have to make ideological concessions. Sectarianism
8 21
ical politics becomes like neoliberal shopping: you pick while there have been individualistic tendencies, they never
whateverticklesyourfancy. defined the movement as a whole. Perhaps most importantly,
anarchism has, regardless of its true or alleged shortcomings,
11. Open discussion is essential for both a fruitful intellec-
anumberofadvantagesoveritsleft-wingcousins:
tual environment and processes of liberation. When
people say or do things that others consider problem- • Anarchism has a stronger critique of the nature of au-
atic, they need to be involved in discussion rather than thority. Whatever you want to say about the supposed
scolded,disciplined,orsilenced. simplicity of anarchist theory, in God and the State,
written in 1871, Mikhail Bakunin summarized the fate
12. Labels are a no-go for many anarchists. “It’s not impor-
of what would later become the Soviet Union in two
tantwhatyoucallyourself,it’simportantwhatyoudo.”
pages.Hepredictedthatarevolutionarypartyassuming
At face value this seems convincing. However, a label
power would form a new ruling elite, prevent people’s
is but a word, words are tools for communication, and
liberation, and effectively prepare its own downfall.
incommunicationwearereliantonshorthands.Putting
Today, prominent Marxists such as John Holloway,
a label on the contents of our politics allows others —
Slavoj Žižek, and Alain Badiou speak of the need for a
friends and foes — to get an idea of what we stand for.
communism without the state and the party as if this
This is how we build community and solidarity. There
was a new invention. Anarchists have been saying this
would have never been a “communist threat” had there
allalong.
notbeenawordforit.Itisimportantforasocialmove-
mentoflike-mindedpeopletohaveacommonname. • Anarchists have always paid strong attention to the
cultural aspects of power, while, at the end of the day,
13. Weneedtobuildorganizationsthatareanarchistinna-
Marxism has focused on economic relationships, with
ture — and openly so — but able to play a crucial role
the economic base determining the cultural superstruc-
inbroadersocialmovementsandpeople’sorganizations
ture.Whilelipservicehasbeenpaidtothisrelationship
(tradeunions,tenantunions,consumergroups,sportsas-
being dynamic and dialectical, it has seldom led Marx-
sociations,etc.).Anarchistorganizationsneedtoprovide
ists to pay the same attention to cultural struggles as
a network for discussion, common action, and mutual
anarchistshave.
support. While this requires a certain degree of formal-
ity, formality must not be confused with efficiency. Effi- • Not only cultural aspects of power have been empha-
ciencyalwaysreliesontheindividualqualitiesoftheor- sized by anarchists but also the multiplicity of oppres-
ganization’s members, that is, responsibility, reliability, sion. Only some strains of anarchism have shared the
andaccountability.Thisiswhyplatformismisnoanswer Marxistinclinationtodelegatesupposedlynon-working-
tothecrisisinanarchistorganizing.Weneedsomething classstrugglestosideissues.Anarchistshave,forexam-
moreadaptable. ple, formulated stronger critiques of patriarchy and na-
tionalism.Inatimewhentermssuchas“multipleoppres-
20 9
sion”and“intersectionality”areinvogue,anarchismcan dependent on systems they have no control over and
rightfullyclaimapioneeringrole. require a complexity of social organization impossible
to maintain on a grassroots level. We need to reject
• While—liketheirMarxistcounterparts—mostclassical
nuclear power and other supposed blessings holding
anarchists believed in scientific progress as a necessity
the earth and humankind hostage, question progress as
formovingtowardaliberatedsociety,anarchismischar-
an indispensable means of making the world a better
acterizedneitherbyadeterministicunderstandingofhis-
place, scrutinize rationalism and science, and focus on
tory nor by Eurocentric rationalism. Elitist concepts of
small-scalecommunities.
scientistsasaquasi-leadingclasswerecriticizedearlyon,
whileutopianperspectiveshavebeenheldinhighregard 9. If you ask anarchists why they focus more on certain
rather than being dismissed as distractive pipe dreams. struggles than on others, the most usual reply is that
With historical materialism looking shakier than ever, “allstrugglesareimportant”.Butthat’snoanswertothe
thisspeaksinanarchism’sfavor. question.Theissueisnotwhetherallstrugglesareimpor-
tant(ofcoursetheyare),butwhyweprioritizesomeover
• Atleastsomeprominentanarchists,suchasLeoTolstoy
others. Yes, subjective factors play a role: you focus on
and Gustav Landauer, understood the need for a “spir-
thestrugglesthatmostconcernyouorthatyoufeelmost
itual revolution”. Not to indulge in hocus-pocus but to
competent in. Yet, if we claim to be revolutionaries, we
emphasize the need of changing the human soul in or-
alsoneedtoidentifythestrugglesthatholdthestrongest
der to change the world. A spiritual dimension makes
revolutionary promise. Moral urgency does not neces-
radicalpoliticsricher,notpoorer.
sarilycorrelatewithrevolutionarypotential.Moststrug-
gles are not revolutionary in themselves, they need to
• Anarchists’skepticismtowardhistoricalmaterialismhas
bemaderevolutionarythroughconcreteconnectionsto
oftenearnedthemtheMarxistaccusationofbeing“vol-
revolutionarypolitics.
untaristic”, that is, of believing that revolutionary pro-
cessesaredependentonpeoplechoosing(havingthewill
10. The embrace of diversity has always been one of anar-
—voluntas)tosupportthem.Marxistsconsiderthisshal-
chism’sstrengths,butitmustnotbecomeanexcusefor
low,insistingoneconomicrealitiesdeterminingindivid-
neglectinganalysis.Anynonsensecanbejustifiedwith
ualconsciousnessandthereforeindividuals’capacityfor
the “need for diversity”, as if this was a blank check for
politicalaction.Itistheanarchistswhoareright.Social
doingwhateveryouwant.Forexample,notalltacticsare
changecomesfrompeoplewantingsocialchange.
equallyusefulatanygiventime;theyhavetobechosen
according to our possibilities and the specific situation
• In the work of later twentieth-century anarchists — for
athand.Whatdowewant?Whoisinvolved?Whatcan
example, in that of Murray Bookchin, Paul Feyerabend,
realistically be done? What are our means? Diversity is
and the so-called anarcho-primitivists, with all their
goodwhenitstandsforopenness,flexibility,andarange
problems—thetrustintechnologyhasbeenchallenged
ofoptions.Butifitiscelebratedasavirtueinitself,rad-
in ways that Marxist theory has not been able to rival.
10 19