Fwd: Re: Anarchism / Marxism debates

Charles Brown CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Aug 19 08:52:52 MDT 1999



>What in god's name would a "revolution" in the U.S. look like? The
>masses storming the White House and the floor of the NYSE? My
>scenario involves fairly classic political work by parties, unions,
>and other organizations. I really don't know what yours does. Please
>expand.


Have we forgotten that the City of London was stormed on June 18th?
Why do we forget this?


Let me explain. I too think that revolutionaries make the best reformers.
Often during the long slog of reform work a good revolutionary is
indistinguisable from any other conscientious selfless democrat - humanist,
christian, or whatever. The art comes in how to combine the long process of
struggling to accumulate strength, with an ability to think flexibly, in
fact to think dialectically, when sparks of real, qualitative change flare
up.

Marx, Engels, and Lenin are all clear that revolution is from one point of
view a sudden event but from a more meaningful point of view is a fairly
long turbulent period. This period is punctuated by events that have great
symbolic significance, like the throwing of tea into Boston harbour, the
storming of the Bastille, (even if there were hardly any prisoners to be
released), and perhaps we shall look back in years to come, to June 18th
1999 when the City of London was invaded, among others, by anarchists, who
did not always behave perfectly correctly.

You may say that June 18th was not a revolution. It may not turn out to be
the start of a revolution. BUT it just MIGHT. Certainly it is one of those
sparks that spatter across a revolutionary period.

What was unprecedented in world history - literally, not to be pompous -
was that it combined rapid world wide integration of knowledge by means of
internet technology for the use of radicals, with street action in one city
coordinated with an event in another - London - Frankfurt. The power of
mass collective action has not been lost through new technology, rather the
possibilities have been enhanced.

June 18 had a very high level of reforming planning behind it with
sophisticated tactics about street publicity, theatre, protest actions. The
"excesses" which happen unsurprisingly in any revolutionary period, were
the result of the presence of anarchists (who cannot always be excluded
even though there is a fine line between them, genuine revolutionaries, and
agent provocateurs), some alcohol, and an incident in which a woman was run
over by a police vehicle when the police, significantly, had lost control
of the situation.

One cannot predict when such events will occur in Wall Street, but there is
no genetic reason why Americans are not capable of as much courage,
determination, impulsivity. What is needed is an extensive campaign for
reforms in which genuine revolutionaries play a part.

That is why we must not lose sight of the core features of marxism, not
just despite their excessively abstract nature, but because of it:
dialectics, the law of value, materialism.

Philosophically it is necessary always to be able to grasp the
interconnection between the abstract and the concrete. It is necessary
always to think in terms of contradictions. It is necessary to have an
*immanent*  analysis of everything that is happening around us.

Do not let us under-estimate the speed of change. In England individuals
with no doubt anarchist weaknesses are working alongside more dedicated
reformers in sympathy with a very wide stratum of public opinion against
the capitalist pressure to revolutionise the forces of agricultural
production through genetic engineering. On the surface it is literally
reactionary, petty bourgeois nonsense, as Jim Heartfield will penetratingly
critique. Underneath the surface, where marxists should always look, it has
the momentum to ensure that more GM crops are destroyed in Britain, and
mass demonstrations occur. Much more it has the potential for a vaste
swathe of US goods being barred from access to European markets and a
massive trade war between US and Europe. At stake will be the very issue of
the relations of production, whether they are under the control of society,
or under the private control of the owners of capital. It will be a fight
on a world scale.

Highly complex.

Much as we desire the simplicity of apparently simple emotions, such
revolutionary periods are complex. Many difficult questions about the
interrelationship of different peoples, groups, forces, tendencies.
Everything will depend on whether a broadly democratic front can hold
together a consensus and deal with internal contradictions
non-antagonistically, better than the forces of capitalism can fragment and
dissipate the movement.

That is why the best reformers work on a daily basis on the
interrelationship between the most abstract and the most concrete. For this
we need the marxist concepts of dialectical materialism, and the law of
value.

Perhaps we should say successful revolution is 80% slog, 20% dialectics.
Except that we need dialectics 100% of the time to make the best use of the
slog for when the openings for rapid qualitative advance occur.


Chris Burford

London
Received: from dont.panix.com
        (fwi.ci.detroit.mi.us [12.2.196.1])
        by mail.ci.detroit.mi.us; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 02:18:59 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
        by dont.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixLC1.6) id CAA02112
        for lbo-talk-outgoing; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 02:14:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from monsoon.mail.pipex.net (monsoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.69])
        by dont.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixLC1.6) with SMTP id CAA02106
        for <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 02:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 19358 invoked from network); 19 Aug 1999 06:14:24 -0000
Received: from userk982.uk.uudial.com (HELO default) (193.149.73.50)
  by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 1999 06:14:24 -0000
Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990819070754.00cdfa1c at pop.gn.apc.org>
X-Sender: cburford at pop.gn.apc.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 07:07:54 +0100
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Anarchism / Marxism debates
In-Reply-To: <v04210103b3e07887084c@[166.84.250.86]>
References: <37B9BEA3.5E8B8597 at mail.ilstu.edu>
 <3.0.1.32.19990816152942.0091ec60 at pop.ma.ultranet.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19990816183156.009a30a0 at pop.ma.ultranet.com>
 <v04210107b3df24ae7a9f@[166.84.250.86]>
 <37B9BEA3.5E8B8597 at mail.ilstu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com

At 10:51 18/08/99 -0400, Doug wrote:

>What in god's name would a "revolution" in the U.S. look like? The
>masses storming the White House and the floor of the NYSE? My
>scenario involves fairly classic political work by parties, unions,
>and other organizations. I really don't know what yours does. Please
>expand.


Have we forgotten that the City of London was stormed on June 18th?
Why do we forget this?


Let me explain. I too think that revolutionaries make the best reformers.
Often during the long slog of reform work a good revolutionary is
indistinguisable from any other conscientious selfless democrat - humanist,
christian, or whatever. The art comes in how to combine the long process of
struggling to accumulate strength, with an ability to think flexibly, in
fact to think dialectically, when sparks of real, qualitative change flare
up.

Marx, Engels, and Lenin are all clear that revolution is from one point of
view a sudden event but from a more meaningful point of view is a fairly
long turbulent period. This period is punctuated by events that have great
symbolic significance, like the throwing of tea into Boston harbour, the
storming of the Bastille, (even if there were hardly any prisoners to be
released), and perhaps we shall look back in years to come, to June 18th
1999 when the City of London was invaded, among others, by anarchists, who
did not always behave perfectly correctly.

You may say that June 18th was not a revolution. It may not turn out to be
the start of a revolution. BUT it just MIGHT. Certainly it is one of those
sparks that spatter across a revolutionary period.

What was unprecedented in world history - literally, not to be pompous -
was that it combined rapid world wide integration of knowledge by means of
internet technology for the use of radicals, with street action in one city
coordinated with an event in another - London - Frankfurt. The power of
mass collective action has not been lost through new technology, rather the
possibilities have been enhanced.

June 18 had a very high level of reforming planning behind it with
sophisticated tactics about street publicity, theatre, protest actions. The
"excesses" which happen unsurprisingly in any revolutionary period, were
the result of the presence of anarchists (who cannot always be excluded
even though there is a fine line between them, genuine revolutionaries, and
agent provocateurs), some alcohol, and an incident in which a woman was run
over by a police vehicle when the police, significantly, had lost control
of the situation.

One cannot predict when such events will occur in Wall Street, but there is
no genetic reason why Americans are not capable of as much courage,
determination, impulsivity. What is needed is an extensive campaign for
reforms in which genuine revolutionaries play a part.

That is why we must not lose sight of the core features of marxism, not
just despite their excessively abstract nature, but because of it:
dialectics, the law of value, materialism.

Philosophically it is necessary always to be able to grasp the
interconnection between the abstract and the concrete. It is necessary
always to think in terms of contradictions. It is necessary to have an
*immanent*  analysis of everything that is happening around us.

Do not let us under-estimate the speed of change. In England individuals
with no doubt anarchist weaknesses are working alongside more dedicated
reformers in sympathy with a very wide stratum of public opinion against
the capitalist pressure to revolutionise the forces of agricultural
production through genetic engineering. On the surface it is literally
reactionary, petty bourgeois nonsense, as Jim Heartfield will penetratingly
critique. Underneath the surface, where marxists should always look, it has
the momentum to ensure that more GM crops are destroyed in Britain, and
mass demonstrations occur. Much more it has the potential for a vaste
swathe of US goods being barred from access to European markets and a
massive trade war between US and Europe. At stake will be the very issue of
the relations of production, whether they are under the control of society,
or under the private control of the owners of capital. It will be a fight
on a world scale.

Highly complex.

Much as we desire the simplicity of apparently simple emotions, such
revolutionary periods are complex. Many difficult questions about the
interrelationship of different peoples, groups, forces, tendencies.
Everything will depend on whether a broadly democratic front can hold
together a consensus and deal with internal contradictions
non-antagonistically, better than the forces of capitalism can fragment and
dissipate the movement.

That is why the best reformers work on a daily basis on the
interrelationship between the most abstract and the most concrete. For this
we need the marxist concepts of dialectical materialism, and the law of
value.

Perhaps we should say successful revolution is 80% slog, 20% dialectics.
Except that we need dialectics 100% of the time to make the best use of the
slog for when the openings for rapid qualitative advance occur.


Chris Burford

London









More information about the Marxism mailing list