Subject: RE: Berkman, voting and evolutionary preparation
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:07:29 -0500


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


I'm aware of the weaknesses in what I've presented here, and it's good that
you have pointed them out explicitly.  I could elaborate if I had the time,
but I doubt I could make a more convincing case than what I have already put
forward.  Basically I wanted to do my part in contributing to the overall
discussion on this topic, and hopefully get others to chime in.

For anyone who doesn't know, Berkman was perhaps the most solid partner with
Emma Goldman in the whole Mother Earth thing.  This book of his
(Introduction to Anarchism, aka ABC of Anarchsim) is the only book I've read
so far on anarchism.  It was written between WWI and WWII, years after the
Russian revolution.  Unfortunately he died before the Spanish Civil War.

Berkman gives many examples of failures of both reformist and revolutionary
changes, but he concentrates on the Russian revolution (Russia is his
homeland and that revolution was still fresh in his memory).  The chapters
he spends on that revolution are worth reading, even if you don't read any
other chapters.  His description of the process by which reformist
politicians are rendered useless or worse is also excellent.  Anyway the
Russian revolution is the prime example of a failed revolution.  It was
actually successful for several months.  Once Tsarism was abolished, there
was a state of affairs very close to anarchism, until the Bolsheviks gained
power and everything fell to shit.

-m
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of Mike P
  Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 4:27 PM
  To: anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU; wobbly8-AT-mail.com
  Cc: hcgp-peace-AT-yahoogroups.com; houstonanarchists-AT-lists.riseup.net
  Subject: re: Berkman, voting and evolutionary preparation


  m wrote:
  <"Human nature is such that social goals can never be achieved in an
  absolute sense, so it only makes sense to talk about whether actions do or
do
  not move us closer to our goals.">

  Please explain. Where is this human nature you speak of? Isn't human
nature by
  it's very nature impossible to determine? This makes a tenuous argument.

  <"Anarchist goals, as I understand them,
  are freedom, equality, and justice (to simplify the two components of
  anarchism: libertarianism and socialism).">

  And these are the goals of various democrats, liberals, activists etc. i
would
  agree that anarchists have the goals of freedom and justice (not
necessarily
  equality), however we understand these concepts very differently. Perhaps
more
  importantly we develop our understanding of these goals along with free
  association, having our ends realized in the means, spontaneity, passion
of
  life, mutual aid, joy etc. If we simply say we have the goals of freedom,
  equality and justice, then there is no reason for us to be differentiated
from George
  Bush. He says he wants the same thing. We have to be more explicit.

  <"I don't think any of us can authoritatively state whether or not
  getting Kerry into office will bring about the slightest improvement in
  freedom, equality, or justice, but most people seem to think so, at least
most
  people on the left (whether or not you include Democrats).  Therefore, by
  most people's individual assessments, voting for Kerry has some reasonable
  chance of working toward anarchist goals.">

  Where has this been determined that most people think this? From what I
have
  heard on this list people are trying to avoid doomsday. What are these
people's
  individual assessments of freedom, equality, and justice? These answers
may have
  nothing whatsoever to do with anarchy. This is slippery reasoning.

  <"GWB has been the most powerful organizing force for leftists in
  decades.  As much as I want to see Bush go, I have to acknowledge that
putting
  Kerry into office will instantly cut the current levels of domestic
opposition
  in half while solidifying the "resistance" among Republicans and
  neoconservatives.">

  This is not the point, it's linear thought. i really don't think
maintenance of
  domestic opposition is a genuine anarchist goal. Remember, we aren't
leaders or
  representatives for anyone. We are trying to create self-determined ways
of
  living.

  <"While there is a chance of some very slight "reformist"
  type improvements under Kerry, what would such a development mean for
those of
  us who
  seek revolution?  Alexander Berkman presents 4 conclusions regarding
  revolution: <begin quote>
  1) a social revolution is one that entirely changes the foundation of
  society, its political, economic, and social character;">

  fine.

  <"2) such a change must *first* take place in the ideas and opinions of
  the people, in the minds of men [sic];>"

  How many 'people'? oh, all of them. Only men though?? Who will create this
great
  organization of ideas? Stop the revolution, Danny still has a few
questions!

  <"3) oppression and misery may hasten revolution, but may *thereby*
  also turn it into failure, because lack of evolutionary preparation will
make
  real accomplishment impossible;">

  Where is this from? It's pretty vague. Does voting fall under evolutionary
  preparation? i don't know berkman well, but i doubt it. Oppression and
misery
  will be parts of any revolution. As a group creates tension against a
society
  there will be repression from the government, and likely a polarity of
groups
  formed. This preparation, i would suggest, means taking actions which
undermine
  the power and legitimacy of government. The overturning of social
relationships,
  attacks on the structures of power and institutions, sabotage, refusal,
etc.
  I think that 'evolutionary preparation' would include not being sucked
into the
  tricks of government, which would mean offering voting bribes for one. We
also
  need to create organizations which will be solid, yet provide individual
  autonomy. In tense situations, rash decisions can be made, easily
corrupting us
  from our anarchist ideas. The mistakes of anarchist practise are well
critiqued
  in the Spanish revolution. If we are already prepared to join the
government's
  symbolic rituals, what will we do in revolt?

  <"4) only that revolution can be fundamental, social, and successful
  which will be the expression of a basic change of ideas and opinions
  <end quote>">

  So theory is expressed in practise. What practise is established when we
have a theory of immediate demands and partial societal changes? reform?

  <"So, a successful revolution cannot take place until the conditions are
  right. Those conditions are a widespread deep dissatisfaction with
  the current arrangements, and a shared vision of what these arrangements
  should be.  So if one focuses on revolution to the exclusion of any
  short-term "reformist" relief, then let's consider whether this
  election could make a difference in that regard.  While Bush has been a
  great stimulus for organizing resistance, this dynamic fits almost
entirely
  into Berkman'sobservation #2: hastening the revolution but dooming
  it to failure due to lack of evolutionary preparation.">

  You're speaking determinism. If someone makes the argument that we
shouldn't vote because we'll lose the organizing power of Bush (not that m
was actually making this argument) they are not making an anarchist
argument. They are speaking of a revolution which is determined by state
advancement and coercion. Anarchists, as i the theory, are concerned with
self-organization in the means of action which is necessary if we are ever
to bring about self-organized society in the end. I doubt Berkman would have
neglected this.

  If we are to engage in 'evolutionary preparation' we have to do so with or
without Bush. the election is not a revolutionary concern unless we are
trying to manufacture revolt, then we would not be anarchists. If we want
freedom, justice, self-organization, spontaneity, direct action, joy; we
have to do so now in our actions. Please, someone explain to me how voting
would be an example of this. Or, tell me how all the anarchists who argue
that freedom can only be realized in freedom are wrong.

  <"The anarchist vision is understood by
  very few, and embraced by even fewer.  We are nowhere near the level
  of evolutionary preparation necessary for a successful revolution.  If
  we may assume that things will be slightly less oppressive under Kerry
(NOT
  a safe assumption), the conditions will be better for evolutionary
  preparation, that is, a change in social consciousness.  Under Bush, we
have been
  operating in crisis mode, and any movement toward revolution under
  such conditions will be premature.">

  So i take it this means, you are one of the very few who understand the
anarchist vision (tm). i think we should all know that revolt isn't always
planned and can be carried out by non-anarchists. What if something breaks
out in Cincinnatti? Should anarchists suggest peace and order, simply
because the conditions aren't yet right? Why is Kerry better for social
consciousness? Will he help distribute anarchy journals and sponsor
bookfairs? We need some convincing arguments.

  <"To sum up, although there is no way of knowing what a Kerry
  presidency will be like, it is very unlikely to be worse, and quite
possibly a little
  better, for both reformist and revolutionary goals of libertarian
  socialism.">

  Again, why? Who is to say that conditions won't be ripe for a rehaul of
democracy? Perhaps people's faith will be restored, forgetting the GWB
bogeyman.

  <"Either way, I believe we all (anarchists) can agree that no real
  solution comes from the electoral process, and therefore whether we choose
to
  vote or not is far less important than the work that we are all hopefully
  doing to tear down the old system and build the new.">

  for the record, i'm not trying to tell people do not vote. i only want to
have a discussion regarding -AT-ist principles and the relation to voting. I am
wary of attempts to try and predict the future, but if someone thinks that
voting will contribute to their present and future -AT-ist goals, who am i to
stop them? It's good that you (m) emphasise the need for action now, even if
one decides to vote.

  <""One last point: Some people who advocate revolution (whether violent
  or not) favor making things worse in order to increase public discontent
  ("objective conditions") and thereby precipitate the revolution.  I know
for
  example there is some thinking in the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP)
  along these lines.  This is totally working the wrong end of the equation.
  The precipitation point of revolution is determined by a balance of
  objective conditions and social consciousness.  Making objective
conditions
  worse increases the chances of some kind of revolt, but also increases the
  chances that the revolution will fail, not to mention that this path
requires
  greater levels of violence (such as a 'vanguard').  Improving social
  consciousness, on the other hand, helps ensure that the revolution
  will be successful and will require little or no violence.  Such an
approach
  is far more consistent with anarchis t (and green) principles of
  decentralization and nonviolence."> m

  Well said, but i think we should use different reasoning from those who
advocate the worsening of objective conditions.
  Mike





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals

HTML VERSION:

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU [mailto:owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of Mike P
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 4:27 PM
To: anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU; wobbly8-AT-mail.com
Cc: hcgp-peace-AT-yahoogroups.com; houstonanarchists-AT-lists.riseup.net
Subject: re: Berkman, voting and evolutionary preparation

m wrote:
<"Human nature is such that social goals can never be achieved in an
absolute sense, so it only makes sense to talk about whether actions do or do
not move us closer to our goals.">

Please explain. Where is this human nature you speak of? Isn't human nature by
it's very nature impossible to determine? This makes a tenuous argument.

<"Anarchist goals, as I understand them,
are freedom, equality, and justice (to simplify the two components of
anarchism: libertarianism and socialism).">

And these are the goals of various democrats, liberals, activists etc. i would
agree that anarchists have the goals of freedom and justice (not necessarily
equality), however we understand these concepts very differently. Perhaps more
importantly we develop our understanding of these goals along with free
association, having our ends realized in the means, spontaneity, passion of
life, mutual aid, joy etc. If we simply say we have the goals of freedom,
equality and justice, then there is no reason for us to be differentiated from George
Bush. He says he wants the same thing. We have to be more explicit.

<"I don't think any of us can authoritatively state whether or not
getting Kerry into office will bring about the slightest improvement in
freedom, equality, or justice, but most people seem to think so, at least most
people on the left (whether or not you include Democrats).  Therefore, by
most people's individual assessments, voting for Kerry has some reasonable
chance of working toward anarchist goals.">

Where has this been determined that most people think this? >From what I have
heard on this list people are trying to avoid doomsday. What are these people's
individual assessments of freedom, equality, and justice? These answers may have
nothing whatsoever to do with anarchy. This is slippery reasoning.

<"GWB has been the most powerful organizing force for leftists in
decades.  As much as I want to see Bush go, I have to acknowledge that putting
Kerry into office will instantly cut the current levels of domestic opposition
in half while solidifying the "resistance" among Republicans and
neoconservatives.">

This is not the point, it's linear thought. i really don't think maintenance of
domestic opposition is a genuine anarchist goal. Remember, we aren't leaders or
representatives for anyone. We are trying to create self-determined ways of
living.

<"While there is a chance of some very slight "reformist"
type improvements under Kerry, what would such a development mean for those of
us who
seek revolution?  Alexander Berkman presents 4 conclusions regarding
revolution: <begin quote>
1) a social revolution is one that entirely changes the foundation of
society, its political, economic, and social character;">

fine.

<"2) such a change must *first* take place in the ideas and opinions of
the people, in the minds of men [sic];>"

How many 'people'? oh, all of them. Only men though?? Who will create this great
organization of ideas? Stop the revolution, Danny still has a few questions!

<"3) oppression and misery may hasten revolution, but may *thereby*
also turn it into failure, because lack of evolutionary preparation will make
real accomplishment impossible;">

Where is this from? It's pretty vague. Does voting fall under evolutionary
preparation? i don't know berkman well, but i doubt it. Oppression and misery
will be parts of any revolution. As a group creates tension against a society
there will be repression from the government, and likely a polarity of groups
formed. This preparation, i would suggest, means taking actions which undermine
the power and legitimacy of government. The overturning of social relationships,
attacks on the structures of power and institutions, sabotage, refusal, etc.

I think that 'evolutionary preparation' would include not being sucked into the
tricks of government, which would mean offering voting bribes for one. We also
need to create organizations which will be solid, yet provide individual
autonomy. In tense situations, rash decisions can be made, easily corrupting us
from our anarchist ideas. The mistakes of anarchist practise are well critiqued
in the Spanish revolution. If we are already prepared to join the government's
symbolic rituals, what will we do in revolt?

<"4) only that revolution can be fundamental, social, and successful
which will be the expression of a basic change of ideas and opinions
<end quote>">

So theory is expressed in practise. What practise is established when we have a theory of immediate demands and partial societal changes? reform?

<"So, a successful revolution cannot take place until the conditions are
right. Those conditions are a widespread deep dissatisfaction with
the current arrangements, and a shared vision of what these arrangements
should be.  So if one focuses on revolution to the exclusion of any
short-term "reformist" relief, then let's consider whether this
election could make a difference in that regard.  While Bush has been a
great stimulus for organizing resistance, this dynamic fits almost entirely
into Berkman'sobservation #2: hastening the revolution but dooming
it to failure due to lack of evolutionary preparation.">

You're speaking determinism. If someone makes the argument that we shouldn't vote because we'll lose the organizing power of Bush (not that m was actually making this argument) they are not making an anarchist argument. They are speaking of a revolution which is determined by state advancement and coercion. Anarchists, as i the theory, are concerned with self-organization in the means of action which is necessary if we are ever to bring about self-organized society in the end. I doubt Berkman would have neglected this.

If we are to engage in 'evolutionary preparation' we have to do so with or without Bush. the election is not a revolutionary concern unless we are trying to manufacture revolt, then we would not be anarchists. If we want freedom, justice, self-organization, spontaneity, direct action, joy; we have to do so now in our actions. Please, someone explain to me how voting would be an example of this. Or, tell me how all the anarchists who argue that freedom can only be realized in freedom are wrong.

<"The anarchist vision is understood by
very few, and embraced by even fewer.  We are nowhere near the level
of evolutionary preparation necessary for a successful revolution.  If
we may assume that things will be slightly less oppressive under Kerry (NOT
a safe assumption), the conditions will be better for evolutionary
preparation, that is, a change in social consciousness.  Under Bush, we have been
operating in crisis mode, and any movement toward revolution under
such conditions will be premature.">

So i take it this means, you are one of the very few who understand the anarchist vision (tm). i think we should all know that revolt isn't always planned and can be carried out by non-anarchists. What if something breaks out in Cincinnatti? Should anarchists suggest peace and order, simply because the conditions aren't yet right? Why is Kerry better for social consciousness? Will he help distribute anarchy journals and sponsor bookfairs? We need some convincing arguments.

<"To sum up, although there is no way of knowing what a Kerry
presidency will be like, it is very unlikely to be worse, and quite possibly a little
better, for both reformist and revolutionary goals of libertarian
socialism.">

Again, why? Who is to say that conditions won't be ripe for a rehaul of democracy? Perhaps people's faith will be restored, forgetting the GWB bogeyman.

<"Either way, I believe we all (anarchists) can agree that no real
solution comes from the electoral process, and therefore whether we choose to
vote or not is far less important than the work that we are all hopefully
doing to tear down the old system and build the new.">

for the record, i'm not trying to tell people do not vote. i only want to have a discussion regarding -AT-ist principles and the relation to voting. I am wary of attempts to try and predict the future, but if someone thinks that voting will contribute to their present and future -AT-ist goals, who am i to stop them? It's good that you (m) emphasise the need for action now, even if one decides to vote.

<""One last point: Some people who advocate revolution (whether violent
or not) favor making things worse in order to increase public discontent
("objective conditions") and thereby precipitate the revolution.  I know for
example there is some thinking in the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP)
along these lines.  This is totally working the wrong end of the equation.
The precipitation point of revolution is determined by a balance of
objective conditions and social consciousness.  Making objective conditions
worse increases the chances of some kind of revolt, but also increases the
chances that the revolution will fail, not to mention that this path requires
greater levels of violence (such as a 'vanguard').  Improving social
consciousness, on the other hand, helps ensure that the revolution
will be successful and will require little or no violence.  Such an approach
is far more consistent with anarchis t (and green) principles of
decentralization and nonviolence."> m

Well said, but i think we should use different reasoning from those who advocate the worsening of objective conditions.

Mike

---

Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals