While this article does not signify our turn toward democratic socialism
and though we do not agree with everything in this piece, we feel the
author raises many important points deserving serious consideration by the
anarchist movement. We should listen to criticism and challenges from those
outside of our movement if we hope to grow -- eds.)
The struggle for a democratic alternative to capitalism has seen many
conflicting traditions. Communism, Anarchism, Socialism and countless
variations and combinations have emerged. Today, when the call for a new
world has been revived by the explosive protest movements surrounding
corporate globalization, most of these differences seem to be archaic and
almost theological. Such divisions, many argue, are grist merely for caf�
debates. Who cares which revolutionary messiah we wear on our T-shirts?
There is work to be done.
But if this movement is about more than reform of policy � if, as many
hope, it can serve as a battery for a new anti-capitalism � at some point
we are going to have to talk about more than what we are against. We are
going to have to talk more specifically and analytically about the system
we are up against, and, of course, about what we want to replace it with.
In this way, talking about ideology is an important thing. Working in
different areas of the student, anti-corporate and solidarity movements, I
have made many friends and allies who identify themselves with the wide
range of anarchist thought. As a democratic socialist, I was often struck
by both the similarities and the differences between our approaches to
political activism and analysis. This essay is an attempt to foster more
debate and discussion between our two currents, to perhaps challenge some
of the strategic choices that many anarchists have made and to lay the
groundwork for a common approach to anti-capitalist activism. It is meant
to raise more questions than it answers.
Fighting for the Commons
Anarchism and democratic socialism share a common heritage. Both traditions
were born out of workers� movements. In the heady days before Marx�s
contributions stratified the labor movement, anarchists, socialists and
communists inhabited the same political space. While different currents and
conflicts certainly existed from the very start, a quick read through
radical history shows that, like monkeys and people, we are closely related
even though we look pretty different now.
Our ideal is also largely the same and has remained unchanged over the
century. As anti-globalization activist Kevin Danaher often remarks, our
cause revolves around �the commons.� That is, we are interested in that
part of society which, like the center of the traditional village, belongs
to everyone, is accessible to everyone and benefits everyone. This is in
contrast to those who wish to distribute all social wealth into private
hands, more or less equally, depending on which side of the
liberal-conservative spectrum of capitalism they adhere to.
I would take this analogy one step further, however, and say that the fight
for the commons has three distinct and equally important features: It must
be expanded, it must be democratized and it must be defended. It is through
an investigation of these three facets of the struggle, I would argue, that
the differences and similarities between anarchism and democratic socialism
emerge.
Expansion
Both of our movements agree that the commons must be expanded, that more
aspects of society must be brought under public control and access. We
share a critique of the traditional Communist (Marxist-Leninist) politics
which demand that the only way to effect this change is through giving the
state complete or nearly complete control over all spheres of social,
political and economic life. We have seen the results of such a strategy.
Anarchists and democratic socialists share an openness to decentralization,
to direct industrial democracy (workers� control), to co-operatives, to
social creativity and to dynamism of ideas.
Where we begin to differ, perhaps, is how we wish to expand the commons.
Many anarchists believe that the commons must be expanded completely,
almost instantaneously, through one or many forms of revolutionary change.
Democratic socialists (and, of course, some anarchists as well), believe
that this expansion can, and should, be a long process of social change.
They key difference here, however, is that democratic socialists believe
that society is never neither fully capitalist nor fully public.
Institutions such as public education, public health care, public
transportation, public libraries, consumer co-operatives and neighborhood
policing are all common goods established through struggle. They expand the
control that we have over our lives. Strong trade unions bring decisions
over wages and working conditions more closely into the hands of workers,
and take such human needs out of the free market. The democratic socialist
emphasis on these kinds of changes, changes which alter the balance of
power within society and bring things under more democratic control,
differentiates us from liberals who wish only to use the state to make
mitigate, or lessen, the negative effects of capitalism. For us, such
reforms are not enough. We are anti-capitalists, if gradualist ones.
The good thing about such a gradualist strategy is that it affects the
lives of many, many people. Millions of people are affected positively by
fighting for access to education, or providing public spaces for
recreation. The anarchist tendency to prefer expansion only through
revolutionary means � for example, fighting against homelessness by
squatting apartment buildings rather than working for public housing � only
solves the problem for a few people at a time. Neither anarchists nor
democratic socialists are going to abolish capitalism in the next few
years, and so it is important to push it back, chip away at it and help
people take control over their lives here and now.
Sometimes, of course, it is necessary to utilize direct action. If it is
not politically possible to build public housing, for example, something
has to be done: take a house. But follow it up with a sustained, broad
effort to change housing policy. Many anarchist squatting activists have
done this, of course. This difference is a question of emphasis, of overall
strategy.
Democratization
One of the reasons that many anarchists prefer actions such as squatting to
lobbying or voting for public housing is that a squat is directly
controlled by its residents. It is, in other words, more democratic. This
emphasis is something that democratic socialists should learn from the
anarchist movement. Too often, we forget about the need for the commons to
be internally democratic, fighting for a formalized, bureaucratic
expansion, without also arguing for and working for the democratization of
existing public institutions and the creation of new, highly democratized
ones.
As this is something we need to learn, anarchists should also reflect on
the importance of access as well as involvement. It is great that there are
institutions fundamentally and radically democratic. However, if nobody has
access to it, or, more pointedly, if people are essentially expected to
drop out of mainstream society in order to partake in these institutions,
as is the case with many anarchist-inspired projects, its impact is
severely restricted. Often, because a public project is not perfect � take,
for example, national health insurance � it is not interesting to
anarchists. This is unfortunate, as truly strong radical movements in other
countries, and in U.S. history, were ones that took up everyday fights and
offered both analysis and leadership within those struggles. (Leadership,
here, doesn�t have to mean manipulation or coercion.) Recall that the
international worker�s holiday, MayDay, commemorates events at an
anarchist-organized demonstration for the eight-hour day, a reform, and not
even a particularly radical one at that.
No anti-capitalist project can succeed or grow or become majoritarian if it
does not address every day concerns. Not everyone has the time or the
mental space to sit around and get excited by radically changing the world.
For most people, the small struggles of daily life are paramount, and our
politics must be seen as complimentary and helpful to these struggles, not
irrelevant, esoteric and unrealistic.
It�s not just about system reform, though. We can and should be radical. At
different points in the history of progressive/radical movements, we have
emphasized the creation of accessible, mass democratic institutions. This
idea can be found among anarchists, Christian socialists, even social
democrats. In Sweden, the labor movement created schools, banks, sports
leagues, music centers, hospitals, restaurants, insurance companies,
affordable housing, retirement homes, libraries, even clothing stores and
hamburger joints, all under the control of the worker�s organizations, open
and accessible to everyone. In the 1960s, in the U.S., the Black Panther
Party attempted a somewhat similar project, with soup kitchens and free
food, schools and clinical programs. Creating counter-institutions is a
good strategy, so long as it is rooted in an attempt to truly reach out to
ordinary people and help them transform their lives. Otherwise, it is
simply elitist.
Thus, the fight to democratize the commons should not be seen narrowly.
Access is just as important to democracy as equal participation is. We
should not fetishize process (it�s not the end of the world if our public
libraries do not gather books based on consensus), nor should we be afraid
to be radical in creating new institutions. We also should not let either
zeal for creation or reformist complacency sway us from the fight to
democratize public institutions which already exist. For example, there are
scores of oversight committees, local school and library boards, block
associations, zoning bodies and other institutions that are potential
arenas for us to fight for more openness, democracy and participation. Hey,
anarchist: run for the school board!
Defense
Similarly, the radical left, including anarchists and many revolutionary
socialists, is sometimes uninterested in the importance of defending what
has already been won, albeit imperfectly, in the fight to expand the
commons. This lack of interest is certainly not universal among anarchists,
and is the kind of fight in which our movements most often interact. But
all too often, anarchists are nowhere to be seen on the front lines of
struggles that are of incredible importance to millions of people. One
major reason for this is that the work of defending what we have won often
requires defending things we don�t completely like. This can feel like a
major compromise for a revolutionary. This question was one of the
underlying issues in the conflicts within the left in the 2000 Presidential
Elections. For most unionists, feminists, lesbian and gay organizations,
and mass people of color groups, the damage promised by a Bush presidency
made it worth beating. Worth it enough to work for a candidate who was not
radically better.
The State
Underlying all of these points, of course, is a difference in attitude
towards the state. Part of a gradualist approach is a comfort with
utilizing a democratic state as a mechanism for creating common goods.
Anarchists and socialists have been arguing about the nature of the state
for over a century, and I will not attempt to add anything new to the
theoretical debate here. Instead, I wish to make a fairly U.S.-specific
argument on the dangers of over-prioritizing a critique of the state,
particularly the federal government. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr,
(D-Chicago), often speaks about what he sees as the underlying conflict in
the U.S. political system. According to Jackson, it is not fundamentally a
liberal-conservative fight, nor is it always a struggle between Democrats
and Republicans. It is a war, he says, that has lingered, unresolved, for
more than one hundred years: the war between State�s Rights and Unionism.
I believe there is truth in this analysis. Many of the most reactionary and
dangerous elements within the U.S. polity are aligned behind an
anti-Federal agenda. It was the federal government that imposed important
civil rights reforms � including the abolition of slavery � on states in
the South and the West. It was federal reform that legalized abortion, gave
women the right to vote and outlawed many forms of employment
discrimination. Many important environmental regulations were enacted at
the federal level. All of these gains were made because social movements
forced them, but without the legal tool of an active federal government,
many of these battles would surely have been lost.
The right wing strategy of disempowering the federal government is
absolutely linked to these facts. State and local authorities are often
easier to corrupt and to keep white and/or male dominated than the federal
government is. While it is certainly healthy for anarchists, and the left
in general, to be critical of centralized power, it is important to
understand that just because someone is not progressive just because they
advocate for local control. Of course, many on the right wish to give more
power to the most repressive elements of the federal government, while at
the same time de-funding and destroying its democratic and progressive
capacities. This needs to be fiercely opposed by the entire Left � not just
the repression, but the destruction of welfare, education and civil rights
as well. The point here is not to deny that the state can be used against
our goals, but rather to broaden the anarchist analysis to understand that
sometimes its programs and policies are worth defending.
The old adage that one�s enemy�s enemy is one�s friend is bad advice.
Racist movements such as the Freemen or the Militias should not be
romanticized or justified because they attack the government. The often
creepy overlap between reactionary localist counter-culture and anarchism
is very dangerous. Anarchist thinkers who have flirted with white
supremacy, such as Earth First! hero Edward Abbey, strike a devil�s
bargain. Living in the woods and distrusting the feds does not a freedom
fighter make. There are a lot of fascists who fit that description.
Less dramatically, a dogmatic mistrust of the state, particularly the
federal government, hampers our ability to effectively champion the cause
of the commons. The state has been an important tool for creating common
space, for democratizing and expanding it, and therefore must be part of
the equation when it comes time to defend it.
The world must be changed, and changed radically. Along the way, however,
we must have the bravery to get our hands dirty in the not-always-radical
business of building a majoritarian, democratic movement capable of
changing it. No utopian or anti-capitalist movement can claim to have all
the answers about how to build such a movement. Historically speaking, so
far, we have all failed. My hope is that as we take advantage of the new
consciousness raised by the growing call for global justice, we are able to
look both critically and constructively at the ideas underlying our
strategies and analyses. Let us begin in our small corner of the world-wide
march for justice and equality.
Daraka Larimore-Hall is a freelance writer and activist. He has been active
for many years in the Young Democratic Socialists and its international
network the International Union of Socialist Youth. Daraka has worked in
labor support, prison justice and anti-racist activism in the U.S. and
Europe. He currently lives and works in Hamar, Norway. He can be contacted
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Link: http://www.onwardnewspaper.org/archives/2-2002/appeal.html
With comments from anarchists...
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/12/14/1550979
