The piece I struggle with, is how do you deal with power? I’m a commie, but I’m the kind who actually believes in an endless struggle against oppression. As long as there is injustice, there will always be struggle, so I’m not looking to create a socialist state and then my job is done. My job is to create the party, then criticize it and develop it through struggle. After that, the goal is internationalism, not a socialist state. The state can only be transitional, a socialist state is at best, a way to keep power out of the hands of rulers and build power for the masses, a historical phase of society committed to liberation.
But power is material, tangible, and objective. It always centralizes. Leninists have a strategy of Democratic Centralism, where the natural tendency of centralizing power is balanced by democratic mass participation. This takes different forms based on historical necessity, sometimes more authoritarian measures, still beholden to the democratic authority of the masses, are necessary, such as the dreaded “war communism,” but communists should always fight for more internal democracy, while preserving the centralized nature of organization. In fact what makes war communism such a blight is that it creates unwinnable dilemmas, such as the unmitigated tragedy at Kronstadt.
But without centralization, a more powerfully centralized force can easily break up our democratic movement and destroy the historic potential to liberate the masses, taking the power away from the masses to centralize in the hands of a new ruling class. This is exactly what happened with the Stalinist bureaucracy that formed after the Russian civil war, state bureaucrats filled the positions of power in the revolutionary government, and the power centralized in the hands of the state bureaucrats replacing the soviets who empowered the first popular revolution in Feb 1917. The civil war created the conditions for the basis, as it destroyed the entire productive capacity of the country, decimating the working class as a class, leaving only the peasantry, the bureaucracy, and only a few genuine revolutionaries.
But what caused the failure of the revolution wasnt ideology it was the loss of democracy that disappeared when the basis for worker power, and hence worker democracy, was smashed by the invaders and white armies, and replaced with a more centralized, more oppressive and authoritarian basis for power.
The other side of this, is that even when power is not formally centralized, such as within a state or government, it is still informally centralized, so that a group or individual can claim that power is being distributed, and maybe it is to a certain degree, but it is being distributed in a way that further centralizes that power. In this instance the tyranny takes the form of de-centralization but its substance is still centralized. In these instances a formal democratic centralized structure is much less authoritarian, because it reveals to the masses the true form of its authority, allowing itself to be properly reckoned with, shaped and improved, rather than the informal authoritarianism that claims to be decentralized but is in fact the opposite.
Please don’t read this as a sweeping dismissal of anarchism, I am very fond of anarchism and anarchists, but the discourse between our traditions is bad for reasons that are completely outside of our control. While I cringe violently watching commies quote “On Authority” at anarchists as if it means a damn thing in this day and age, I think that the democratic centralist model of organizing, while fraught and vulnerable, is much more transparent and practical than decentralization. I acknowledge that anarchists are not a singularity, as you’ve already mentioned ITT, and I’m aware of different anarchist approaches to these issues thanks to my libsoc comrades, even if I don’t fully understand them.
I think the difference is somewhere in the way that the anarchist truly concretizes and celebrates the individual, which unfortunately somehow gets disappeared in much Marxist analysis. I study Malatesta to try and compensate for this shortcoming of our tradition, but the big practical structural questions still nags me.
I think that power will always be a problem that we need to be mindful of. Even on the small scale, power imbalances can arise and lead to harm if we don’t proactively manage them. I find it useful to think of anarchism as an ongoing process rather than a goal, which means that the task will never be completed.
Regarding democracy, I’ve really enjoyed Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau’s writings. They propose a sort of radical democracy. I think it’s “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy” that I’ve read some of. It’s pretty dense, but I found it rewarding, and it reshaped how I think about democracy. In particular, I was far more pessimistic about the possibility of democracy at all before I read it.
I think the YouTube channel Think That Through was what led me to go read Mouffe and Laclau, if you’re a video enjoying person. It wasthis video on Hegemony
Definitely an interesting video, I already see where I need to go back throught and take a few more notes. I thought he put forward an interesting if a bit simplistic view of coalition building.
But it has a few problematic areas. For one, this should not be considered an even glancingly accurate depiction of Marxism. And I’m not complaining about his unwillingness to engage with any historical subjects, only theoretical ones. And I won’t say that some of his criticisms might apply to certain vulgar Marxist tendencies. But as far as Marxism being out of date, he is fundamentally a pre-marxist, not a post Marxist. The fundamental insight of Marxism, that material analysis should be human-centered, conceiving of a unified subject and object rather than separate categories of analysis, is completely lost. For all his talk of “the people,” any strip of humanity is sacrificed for engagement with a method. As Marx said of Feuerbach, he can conceive of “single individuals and civil society” but can’t place the individual in society, nor society in the individual. His early idea that change starts with the individual is sort of correct, but he doesnt advance a step beyond this insight, and instead engages with theory instead of “the people.” As such, he’s an idealist, even if he is the kind to imagine a better world he won’t be able to change himself or anything else.
Other limitations that I noticed, is that he spends a lot of time talking about Gramsci’s theories of hegemony superficially, then spends a lot of time talking about language and post - structuralism. But the fundamental insight of Gramsci, the whole basis of his theory of hegemony is language. His theory of hegemony is based on the risorgiamento period in Italy, which allowed Gramsci to concretely develop his theory by paying close attention to the way that the Florentine dialect spread across Italy, replacing local dialects with The Florentine one, which is what we now know as the Italian language. Through analysis of the spread of language he was able to trace the spread of the ruling class superstructure, which included other things like politics, culture, and finally, power.
The fact that he avoided concrete analysis in order to talk about postmodern theories is pretty glaring imo. As an organizer I’m a bit at a loss for what to do with these theories, but like I said, I wanna go back and review. Its def a perspective I haven’t heard before, and maybe if Marx’s fundamental insights were included, then the method could have some practical application. But as it is described by him, I think its impractical and idealistic.
Otherwise, its a good video, very informative, but if he bothered to actually understand Marx then it could be so much better. Instead, he’ll be stuck using very advanced forms of flawed bourgeois reasoning, which leads nowhere.
The piece I struggle with, is how do you deal with power? I’m a commie, but I’m the kind who actually believes in an endless struggle against oppression. As long as there is injustice, there will always be struggle, so I’m not looking to create a socialist state and then my job is done. My job is to create the party, then criticize it and develop it through struggle. After that, the goal is internationalism, not a socialist state. The state can only be transitional, a socialist state is at best, a way to keep power out of the hands of rulers and build power for the masses, a historical phase of society committed to liberation.
But power is material, tangible, and objective. It always centralizes. Leninists have a strategy of Democratic Centralism, where the natural tendency of centralizing power is balanced by democratic mass participation. This takes different forms based on historical necessity, sometimes more authoritarian measures, still beholden to the democratic authority of the masses, are necessary, such as the dreaded “war communism,” but communists should always fight for more internal democracy, while preserving the centralized nature of organization. In fact what makes war communism such a blight is that it creates unwinnable dilemmas, such as the unmitigated tragedy at Kronstadt.
But without centralization, a more powerfully centralized force can easily break up our democratic movement and destroy the historic potential to liberate the masses, taking the power away from the masses to centralize in the hands of a new ruling class. This is exactly what happened with the Stalinist bureaucracy that formed after the Russian civil war, state bureaucrats filled the positions of power in the revolutionary government, and the power centralized in the hands of the state bureaucrats replacing the soviets who empowered the first popular revolution in Feb 1917. The civil war created the conditions for the basis, as it destroyed the entire productive capacity of the country, decimating the working class as a class, leaving only the peasantry, the bureaucracy, and only a few genuine revolutionaries.
But what caused the failure of the revolution wasnt ideology it was the loss of democracy that disappeared when the basis for worker power, and hence worker democracy, was smashed by the invaders and white armies, and replaced with a more centralized, more oppressive and authoritarian basis for power.
The other side of this, is that even when power is not formally centralized, such as within a state or government, it is still informally centralized, so that a group or individual can claim that power is being distributed, and maybe it is to a certain degree, but it is being distributed in a way that further centralizes that power. In this instance the tyranny takes the form of de-centralization but its substance is still centralized. In these instances a formal democratic centralized structure is much less authoritarian, because it reveals to the masses the true form of its authority, allowing itself to be properly reckoned with, shaped and improved, rather than the informal authoritarianism that claims to be decentralized but is in fact the opposite.
Please don’t read this as a sweeping dismissal of anarchism, I am very fond of anarchism and anarchists, but the discourse between our traditions is bad for reasons that are completely outside of our control. While I cringe violently watching commies quote “On Authority” at anarchists as if it means a damn thing in this day and age, I think that the democratic centralist model of organizing, while fraught and vulnerable, is much more transparent and practical than decentralization. I acknowledge that anarchists are not a singularity, as you’ve already mentioned ITT, and I’m aware of different anarchist approaches to these issues thanks to my libsoc comrades, even if I don’t fully understand them.
I think the difference is somewhere in the way that the anarchist truly concretizes and celebrates the individual, which unfortunately somehow gets disappeared in much Marxist analysis. I study Malatesta to try and compensate for this shortcoming of our tradition, but the big practical structural questions still nags me.
I think that power will always be a problem that we need to be mindful of. Even on the small scale, power imbalances can arise and lead to harm if we don’t proactively manage them. I find it useful to think of anarchism as an ongoing process rather than a goal, which means that the task will never be completed.
Regarding democracy, I’ve really enjoyed Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau’s writings. They propose a sort of radical democracy. I think it’s “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy” that I’ve read some of. It’s pretty dense, but I found it rewarding, and it reshaped how I think about democracy. In particular, I was far more pessimistic about the possibility of democracy at all before I read it.
I think the YouTube channel Think That Through was what led me to go read Mouffe and Laclau, if you’re a video enjoying person. It wasthis video on Hegemony
Definitely an interesting video, I already see where I need to go back throught and take a few more notes. I thought he put forward an interesting if a bit simplistic view of coalition building.
But it has a few problematic areas. For one, this should not be considered an even glancingly accurate depiction of Marxism. And I’m not complaining about his unwillingness to engage with any historical subjects, only theoretical ones. And I won’t say that some of his criticisms might apply to certain vulgar Marxist tendencies. But as far as Marxism being out of date, he is fundamentally a pre-marxist, not a post Marxist. The fundamental insight of Marxism, that material analysis should be human-centered, conceiving of a unified subject and object rather than separate categories of analysis, is completely lost. For all his talk of “the people,” any strip of humanity is sacrificed for engagement with a method. As Marx said of Feuerbach, he can conceive of “single individuals and civil society” but can’t place the individual in society, nor society in the individual. His early idea that change starts with the individual is sort of correct, but he doesnt advance a step beyond this insight, and instead engages with theory instead of “the people.” As such, he’s an idealist, even if he is the kind to imagine a better world he won’t be able to change himself or anything else.
Other limitations that I noticed, is that he spends a lot of time talking about Gramsci’s theories of hegemony superficially, then spends a lot of time talking about language and post - structuralism. But the fundamental insight of Gramsci, the whole basis of his theory of hegemony is language. His theory of hegemony is based on the risorgiamento period in Italy, which allowed Gramsci to concretely develop his theory by paying close attention to the way that the Florentine dialect spread across Italy, replacing local dialects with The Florentine one, which is what we now know as the Italian language. Through analysis of the spread of language he was able to trace the spread of the ruling class superstructure, which included other things like politics, culture, and finally, power.
The fact that he avoided concrete analysis in order to talk about postmodern theories is pretty glaring imo. As an organizer I’m a bit at a loss for what to do with these theories, but like I said, I wanna go back and review. Its def a perspective I haven’t heard before, and maybe if Marx’s fundamental insights were included, then the method could have some practical application. But as it is described by him, I think its impractical and idealistic.
Otherwise, its a good video, very informative, but if he bothered to actually understand Marx then it could be so much better. Instead, he’ll be stuck using very advanced forms of flawed bourgeois reasoning, which leads nowhere.
Thanks for the share!
Thanks for this response! I’m a little familiar with Gramsci’s formulations on hegemony, so I’ll check this out!