As the 2020 presidential season heats up (way too early, it's still early 2019!), I am continually reminded how much the term "progressive" has been co-opted by neoliberal interests.
My frustration has grown to the point where I believe it is necessary to change how I identify myself. The "Progressive PGH" identity seems to have largely run its course, and change is in the air.
To be honest, I have experienced a transformation of my politics over the next 5-10 years anyway. While I still think of "progressive" as someone roughly around Bernie Sanders' set of politics and principles, I no longer personally identify with that system. Despite calling himself "democratic socialist", Bernie has, at least in the modern era, not been particularly critical of capitalism and neoliberalism. He has called for expanded social programs and "safety nets", which is by all means a great step that goes far beyond what most politicians call for, but falls short of the system change that I believe is needed to address climate change and poverty.
I wrestled a bit with exactly what sort of politics I want to see. Simply screaming negative criticism of every candidate isn't a political stance; I need a vision of the future that I can point to. Whenever someone tells me I have to pick the lesser between the two evils, I can point to that vision and say "No, there's another option".
The problem with progressivism is that it is too much of a capitalist apologist framework. It seeks to cover up the problems of capitalism by claiming that if only we have more social programs, and take a firm stand against government corruption, everything will be fine. This isn't true, because capitalism relies on exploitation, meaning it will always generate corruption, and always exploit poverty no matter how many social programs you have. You can't fix capitalism, you have to oppose it. Same can be said for the similar philosophy of social democracy.
The problem with democratic socialism is that relies too much on a top-down approach. Many of the people I've met that refer to themselves by some variant of this term are largely followers of Marx -- or at least today's interpretations of Marx -- who envisioned that the transition to a more communist society (a classless society) would first transition through a socialist phase, in which the state government would be used to smash capitalism. Once capitalism is broken up -- private property ended in particular -- the government would then be dissolved into more localized, democratic community ownership. Firstly, I've not heard many recent socialists talking about dissolving government -- the focus has been entirely on capitalism so far, which often segues people into politics and the idea that political parties like the Democratic Party are the platform with which to take control of government and smash capitalism. As the political party has been co-opted by capitalist forces, this idea seems wildly unrealistic. It puts the cart before the horse, in my opinion. Second, the transition of centralizing power into a state government first is a dangerous move, one that was taken advantage of by autocrats like Lenin. Concentrating power is never a good idea, and so while I generally agree with the long-term goals of democratic socialists, I'm not a fan of the methodology.
Lately I've been reading about a number of other philosophies. Anarchism is a different take on socialism, calling for a much more bottom-up social revolution against oppression by both capitalism and authoritarian government, which is much more appealing to me. Bakunin, Kropotokin, Rocker, are some good names to read about along this line of thought.
Even better were those that came later, around the 1960s, who looked fusing socialism (particularly anarchist thought) with environmentalism. Perhaps the biggest name along this path for me was Murray Bookchin and his philosophy of social ecology. Bookchin opposed capitalism as well as large government, similar to anarchism, but instead saw the world as confederation of municipalities, democratically-run communities that put ecology and human rights first.
Bookchin's philosophy more than most other people I read strongly appealed to me. Interestingly, Bookchin's philosophy played an important role in the early days of the foundation of the Green Party, which is one reason the Green Party has such strong "eco-socialist" roots.
Another interesting source of inspiration was the London Green Left Blog, which looks to authors from all of these philosophies to talk about eco-socialism, a fusion of ecology and environmentalism with anti-war and civil rights politics, taking the best ideas from socialism and even more anarchist-leaning thought such as Bookchin.
To me, the future seems to be some flavor of eco-socialism. We can't stay stuck on old ideologies; even if some are appealing, we have to recognize that today's circumstances -- a worldwide economy, connected by the Internet, facing the global threat of climate catastrophe -- are different than anything faced by past generations. By necessity, we need something new -- informed by old radical thought, but adapted to today.
So I've decided to more explicitly join that movement by renaming my account. I've decided to use the handle Pittsburgh Green Left instead. "Green" because of the focus on ecology, as well as a call-back to the Green Party's key values. "Left" because of a general support of leftist ideologies, socialism and anarchism. The whole name of course is also a nod to the influential London Green Left Blog.
Therefore, the new blog will also be Pittsburgh Green Left -- update your bookmarks! I may transfer some of the most relevant blogs from here to there, but new posts will go there specifically.
Friday, April 26, 2019
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Syndicalism and Resistance
Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice is a short introduction to anarchist theories. In particular, the syndicalist form of anarchism holds that anarchism will be achieved only through united collective struggle via radical unions (syndicates). These unions would not only advocate better worker conditions, but demand direct worker control.
A key focus of unions is therefore teaching members, in both anarchist theory as well as self-sufficiency. Sort term, unions can demand better conditions and pay, but the long term goal must be creating entirely new power structures that can eventually grow and overtake the state and private business.
One thing I liked about the book was the concise summary of the history of anarchist thought. While acknowledging that many cultures historically held views similar to anarchism, modern anarchism was born from the ideas of thinkers like Godwin and Proudhon, who wrote that "[private] property is theft". Bakunin built on Proudhon's ideas, firmly believing only struggle would win because the ruling classes were too proud to allow even modest reform without a fight. Kropotkin expanded Bakunin's ideas even further into the realm of anarchist communism, believing the community owned not only the means of production but the products themselves to ensure everyone has basic needs met. Essentially, while all anarchists share the same end goal, there are differences of opinion on how exactly to get there. Some of those differences were very important, and discussed in the final chapter in which Rocker tracks the evolution of anarcho-syndicalism itself through the modern era.
The other thing I like about Rocker's book is that it gives a list of actions that can be taken by workers. Roughly, the possibly direct actions include:
Boycott. Workers boycott certain products and companies, not only for personal use but also for industrial use at the workplace.
Sabotage. Contrary to the typical English meaning, it comes from French and refers to doing work in a "clumsy" manner. In other words, deliberately working slowly so that one is technically following the rules and laws but is still impacting the bottom line of the company. Extreme versions of sabotage could include altering or damaging the equipment to prevent further work, even if new workers are brought in.
Sit-down strike. Workers strike but do so while occupying the workplace so that other workers can't be brought in so easily to replace them.
General strike. Workers in all industries strike together in order to bring the whole economy to a halt and make the elite pay attention to demands. Police and/or militia can be expected to respond at that point, but Rocker points out that a general strike by its nature is very decentralized, which spreads police forces thin and makes it easier for workers to resist.
All in all it is a short (about 100 pages) book that makes a great introduction if you're looking to learn the basics of anarchist thought.
A key focus of unions is therefore teaching members, in both anarchist theory as well as self-sufficiency. Sort term, unions can demand better conditions and pay, but the long term goal must be creating entirely new power structures that can eventually grow and overtake the state and private business.
One thing I liked about the book was the concise summary of the history of anarchist thought. While acknowledging that many cultures historically held views similar to anarchism, modern anarchism was born from the ideas of thinkers like Godwin and Proudhon, who wrote that "[private] property is theft". Bakunin built on Proudhon's ideas, firmly believing only struggle would win because the ruling classes were too proud to allow even modest reform without a fight. Kropotkin expanded Bakunin's ideas even further into the realm of anarchist communism, believing the community owned not only the means of production but the products themselves to ensure everyone has basic needs met. Essentially, while all anarchists share the same end goal, there are differences of opinion on how exactly to get there. Some of those differences were very important, and discussed in the final chapter in which Rocker tracks the evolution of anarcho-syndicalism itself through the modern era.
The other thing I like about Rocker's book is that it gives a list of actions that can be taken by workers. Roughly, the possibly direct actions include:
Boycott. Workers boycott certain products and companies, not only for personal use but also for industrial use at the workplace.
Sabotage. Contrary to the typical English meaning, it comes from French and refers to doing work in a "clumsy" manner. In other words, deliberately working slowly so that one is technically following the rules and laws but is still impacting the bottom line of the company. Extreme versions of sabotage could include altering or damaging the equipment to prevent further work, even if new workers are brought in.
Sit-down strike. Workers strike but do so while occupying the workplace so that other workers can't be brought in so easily to replace them.
General strike. Workers in all industries strike together in order to bring the whole economy to a halt and make the elite pay attention to demands. Police and/or militia can be expected to respond at that point, but Rocker points out that a general strike by its nature is very decentralized, which spreads police forces thin and makes it easier for workers to resist.
All in all it is a short (about 100 pages) book that makes a great introduction if you're looking to learn the basics of anarchist thought.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Anarchism and Social Revolution
My recent readings from Bookchin and Kropotkin had me interested to learn more about anarchism. I was recently at the Big Idea co-op bookstore in Pittsburgh, and while browsing came across a series of books. The first is "What is Anarchism?" by Alexander Berkman, which is actually two of his essays combined into a book. It seemed like a perfect introduction and so I bought it (as well as a few others that I'll hopefully write about soon -- stay tuned!).
What is Anarchism? is a fantastic read to get a "lay of the land" on anarchist philosophy. The book is written in an almost conversational tone with a natural flow from one chapter to the next, sort of meant to be an on-going conversation where the author anticipates and answers your questions as they come up at the end of each small chapter. In this way it is similar to Kropotkin's books; not sure if that's a trend of anarchists or just lucky, but either way I have greatly appreciated the "down-to-earth" writing style that isn't too heavy in jargon. I find a lot of socialist material is weighed down by Marxist economic terminology, and while I can (mostly) follow it, I always think about how inaccessible such writings can be to the general public. If our goal is to grow the movement, then we need better educational materials. Berkman's writing is clear and informative and I think would be interesting to any worker that has started on the path to questioning capitalism.
A short summary of, What is Anarchism? is that Berkman essentially makes an argument that the only realistic way to bring about change -- what he calls the social revolution, to distinguish from political or violent revolution -- to end the entrenched capitalist system is by organizing for a general strike. A general strike would mean as many as possible -- ideally everyone! -- would go on strike simultaneously, and not just those from a particular industry or business. Berkman argues that only a complete shutdown of our economy and politics would be enough to force concessions and ultimately win an anarchist socialist society. It's a pretty convincing argument, citing other authors as well as Berkman's own experience following the Russian revolution and its successes and failures.
But why is it needed in the first place? The goal of social revolution is "the abolition of government and of economic inequality, and the socialization of the means of production and distribution". In particular, social revolution is not about fighting and destruction but instead about construction -- about constructing a new system. We don't destroy farms and factories, but we take ownership of them for the workers. We "reorganize conditions for the public welfare", as Berkman says. He argues that much of the poverty and inequality that we see today is a result of capitalism, and is upheld largely by coercive forces of government authoritarianism in the form of "private property" laws, meant to keep wealth and power in the hands of a few rather than the collective benefit.
Therefore, we must at once abolition capitalism and government and replace it with a new system that ends inequality and creates democracy, and his view is that a general strike is the most likely method to be successful. Berkman calls for a social revolution because he deems that a political revolution is not possible because political parties are designed to protect capitalism and cannot be infiltrated within or via independent politics. He also deems a violent revolution undesirable and likely to fail because a citizen army cannot resist the full might of the state's police and military forces; plus, as he points out, our goal must be construction and not destruction. So to Berkman, a general strike creating a social revolution is the only way to win victory, for politics and the military machine cannot function if all of the workers throw down the tools and refuse to work for them or uphold the system any longer.
Of course, organizing up to that point will take a lot of work and convincing, and so Berkman talks about the need to educate and organize now until the movement is strong enough. A "weak" strike too early that does not include all workers can fail and hurt the workers more as capitalism retaliates. Berkman therefore argues that until the social revolution, we must spend our time organizing, educating, and building unions that treat all workers as equals and are focused on attacking capitalism and establishing grassroots democracy as a whole rather than only demanding smaller changes like higher wages. He cautions against organizing only around manual labor unions, as he cites intellectual labor like engineering will also be necessary to construct a new world. Even within manual labor, agricultural work is at least as important as industrial work. Thus a united general strike in solidarity between all manual and intellectual labor must be well organized.
The real fight isn't even so much the strike itself, but constructing a new system that can last and not fall right back into the traps of authoritarianism and capitalism. Berkman reminds us, similarly to Kropotkin's call in The Conquest of Bread, that the revolution will fail unless its first priority is getting food and basic needs to all. So a high priority of the social revolution must be unionizing farms, and creating community gardens for self-sufficiency prior to a full strike and action. Once action is under way, Berkman argues citizen committees would form to ensure everyone gets needed housing and supplies, again a call back to Kropotkin's plan. As communities become self-sufficient and needs are met, the interest in returning to the old system and economy will wane and be replaced with an anarchist society that respects the rights of individuals and encourages mutual aid and cooperation without the use of force that capitalism and authoritarian government require.
In short, it's a great read if you'd like to learn about what it means to be an anarchist and that anarchist vision for change. Like many references, a little light on details of organizing -- what exactly does it mean to organize? How do you remain united and organized prior to the general strike? How do you win enough small victories to keep workers united toward the end goal? These are difficult questions for sure, but ones I think worth visiting. While I am definitely confident a non-violent social revolution largely based on strikes and mutual aid would be successful, I'm not sure that I entirely agree that electoral politics is worthless. Expecting to reform an entire system from within is probably a little much, but I think municipal elections can be won and used to create more democratic communities. I also think independent politics at the state and even national level can be valuable as educational tools, but as we see with the Greens can also backfire if we aren't careful how we present ourselves and our vision for change. Overall, Berkman's arguments are intriguing and I will definitely be thinking about them more as I learn and organize.
What is Anarchism? is a fantastic read to get a "lay of the land" on anarchist philosophy. The book is written in an almost conversational tone with a natural flow from one chapter to the next, sort of meant to be an on-going conversation where the author anticipates and answers your questions as they come up at the end of each small chapter. In this way it is similar to Kropotkin's books; not sure if that's a trend of anarchists or just lucky, but either way I have greatly appreciated the "down-to-earth" writing style that isn't too heavy in jargon. I find a lot of socialist material is weighed down by Marxist economic terminology, and while I can (mostly) follow it, I always think about how inaccessible such writings can be to the general public. If our goal is to grow the movement, then we need better educational materials. Berkman's writing is clear and informative and I think would be interesting to any worker that has started on the path to questioning capitalism.
A short summary of, What is Anarchism? is that Berkman essentially makes an argument that the only realistic way to bring about change -- what he calls the social revolution, to distinguish from political or violent revolution -- to end the entrenched capitalist system is by organizing for a general strike. A general strike would mean as many as possible -- ideally everyone! -- would go on strike simultaneously, and not just those from a particular industry or business. Berkman argues that only a complete shutdown of our economy and politics would be enough to force concessions and ultimately win an anarchist socialist society. It's a pretty convincing argument, citing other authors as well as Berkman's own experience following the Russian revolution and its successes and failures.
But why is it needed in the first place? The goal of social revolution is "the abolition of government and of economic inequality, and the socialization of the means of production and distribution". In particular, social revolution is not about fighting and destruction but instead about construction -- about constructing a new system. We don't destroy farms and factories, but we take ownership of them for the workers. We "reorganize conditions for the public welfare", as Berkman says. He argues that much of the poverty and inequality that we see today is a result of capitalism, and is upheld largely by coercive forces of government authoritarianism in the form of "private property" laws, meant to keep wealth and power in the hands of a few rather than the collective benefit.
Therefore, we must at once abolition capitalism and government and replace it with a new system that ends inequality and creates democracy, and his view is that a general strike is the most likely method to be successful. Berkman calls for a social revolution because he deems that a political revolution is not possible because political parties are designed to protect capitalism and cannot be infiltrated within or via independent politics. He also deems a violent revolution undesirable and likely to fail because a citizen army cannot resist the full might of the state's police and military forces; plus, as he points out, our goal must be construction and not destruction. So to Berkman, a general strike creating a social revolution is the only way to win victory, for politics and the military machine cannot function if all of the workers throw down the tools and refuse to work for them or uphold the system any longer.
Of course, organizing up to that point will take a lot of work and convincing, and so Berkman talks about the need to educate and organize now until the movement is strong enough. A "weak" strike too early that does not include all workers can fail and hurt the workers more as capitalism retaliates. Berkman therefore argues that until the social revolution, we must spend our time organizing, educating, and building unions that treat all workers as equals and are focused on attacking capitalism and establishing grassroots democracy as a whole rather than only demanding smaller changes like higher wages. He cautions against organizing only around manual labor unions, as he cites intellectual labor like engineering will also be necessary to construct a new world. Even within manual labor, agricultural work is at least as important as industrial work. Thus a united general strike in solidarity between all manual and intellectual labor must be well organized.
The real fight isn't even so much the strike itself, but constructing a new system that can last and not fall right back into the traps of authoritarianism and capitalism. Berkman reminds us, similarly to Kropotkin's call in The Conquest of Bread, that the revolution will fail unless its first priority is getting food and basic needs to all. So a high priority of the social revolution must be unionizing farms, and creating community gardens for self-sufficiency prior to a full strike and action. Once action is under way, Berkman argues citizen committees would form to ensure everyone gets needed housing and supplies, again a call back to Kropotkin's plan. As communities become self-sufficient and needs are met, the interest in returning to the old system and economy will wane and be replaced with an anarchist society that respects the rights of individuals and encourages mutual aid and cooperation without the use of force that capitalism and authoritarian government require.
In short, it's a great read if you'd like to learn about what it means to be an anarchist and that anarchist vision for change. Like many references, a little light on details of organizing -- what exactly does it mean to organize? How do you remain united and organized prior to the general strike? How do you win enough small victories to keep workers united toward the end goal? These are difficult questions for sure, but ones I think worth visiting. While I am definitely confident a non-violent social revolution largely based on strikes and mutual aid would be successful, I'm not sure that I entirely agree that electoral politics is worthless. Expecting to reform an entire system from within is probably a little much, but I think municipal elections can be won and used to create more democratic communities. I also think independent politics at the state and even national level can be valuable as educational tools, but as we see with the Greens can also backfire if we aren't careful how we present ourselves and our vision for change. Overall, Berkman's arguments are intriguing and I will definitely be thinking about them more as I learn and organize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)