I've been hanging out with some unabashed Bolshies lately, and it has gotten me to thinking about the nature of the radical political party. Marxists always seem to organize in the form of a radical party or something that looks like a radical party. Like-minded folks organize to espouse a set of political beliefs in different organizations vested with Power in society or attempting to form a counter-power (unions, mass movements, etc). The party exists as a core of devoted organizers and intellectuals and either leads popular movements or maintains a constructive dialog with those movements, ideally at least.
Now I don't really want to argue against this model directly, because I'm never going to be smart enough to condemn someone else's honest beliefs for social betterment (at least until they put me in front of a firing squad). This model has been powerful in constructive ways in the past. In the US, the Communist Party really did have a dramatic supportive role for the labor movement until McCarthyism destroyed it (and crippled the labor movement). So just bashing them outright is a little arrogant and pissy.
That being said, I'm not a communist, not a big-C Communist at least. I've read plenty of Marx, and Gramsci and Althusser and Engels and Adorno and Thompson. I've studied movements and revolutions and theories and critiques and economics. And I'm just not one. The system doesn't do much for me. Honestly, half of it is that I think they've got the petite bourgeoisie thing completely wrong and always have. I also don't think they've got good theory of innovation, not because the source material isn't there but because they aren't too interested in the question. And to be honest, I don't dig the foundation- dialectics, no no no. personal preference maybe.
But I don't want to focus on any of this right now, because what they're definitely better at historically than the anarchist camp is actually organizing mass structures of some sort. Anarchists tend to be inept at this, with the rather notable exception of syndicalism in Spain.
In fact, whenever anarchists try to do this, it generally goes very poorly. People split off into camps and start saying mean things about one another. Cults of personality form. People split off, fight over tactics or strategy or favorite bands, and everything goes to shit.
I've wondered about this for a long time, and I'm starting to think the problem is that when we try and form structures and organizations, we deliberately or implicitly mimic the structure and mechanics of the radical Party.
What do I mean?
*We try and find a common ideological ground to serve as a base. And as that fails, we factionalize over nouns or verbs or adjectives.
*We plan political actions based on our ideology.
*Our political actions are based on the model of protest groups and radical Parties. We march and raise hell and form organizations and develop positions on political topics and create attention-raising spectacles and the like. Granted, ours are generally more creative and better- guerrilla gardening at a protest beats the hell out of chanting- but we still are working in the same vein.
*We focus on discourse and critical analysis more than action.
*Actions are primarily oppositional. It's strange, we work on wonderful local projects that are deeply inventive and constructive, and then when we get together we can't quite think of something large-scale and constructive to do.
*We try and influence or participate in mass organizations.
Ok, what I'd like to suggest is that when we do these things, we are dramatically limiting what we could be doing given the nature of anarchism. We need something that allows a mass organization of anarchists without just simulating a radical Party, just without the coherence and accountability.
What might something like that look like? I'm a philosophy person. I like to build things using concepts. I think it's helpful. What are some basic concepts at play in anarchism?
*Direct action. Action undertaken without the mediation of institutionalized Power. Direct action can be destructive or constructive. I would argue that at this point in American history we might as well forgo consideration of destructive direct action for the indefinite future, since the policing powers of the Empire are pretty goddamn strong at this point. Destructive anarchist direct action isn't the same as, say, communist revolutionary violence or even the violence of a protest movements. We wouldn't be trying to seize Power, just destroy it. Really isn't worth talking about, because we can't really pull it off at this point in history.
Constructive direct action is far, far more interesting. Why worry about destroying Power when you can build around it instead? I think we tend to be a little too paranoid in our imagination. Power may be omnipresent, but it is definitely chaotic, disorganized, and self-defeating. After all, that's the point isn't it? Powers are nihilistic and unsustainable. Leave them alone and they'll eat themselves, as long as you can keep them from eating you. So if we just build our own structures and practices, and say fuck all to the rest, maybe we can actually make it through.
*Secession instead of revolution. Another way of putting this would be simply creating an alternative world to inhabit rather than take over the structures we inherit. I don't want to reform Walmart, I want to get the fuck away from Walmart, and I want all my friends to get the fuck from it too, and their friends and their friends... By creating alternatives instead, by building our own ways of meeting needs and relating to one another.
*A rich, reciprocal interplay between individual and collective expression. Anarchism isn't based in elevating individual will to a dogma (like say, our capitalist culture) nor is it based in elevating collective will into a fetish. It is based in the empowerment of the individual by experience in the collective and the enriching of the collective through the singular experience of the individual. Ours is a system of direct, locally-based groups, democratic and dynamic, maximizing both mutual aid and individual freedom.
*Tremendous diversity of focus. Anarchist attention ranges across all categories of social and sometimes natural experience, from the universal to the singular.
So what we need has the following criteria:
1) A basis in constructive direct action.
2) Creating alternative structures for living and relating.
3) A foundation in networked, locally-based autonomous groups.
4) No restrictions as to attention and expression.
Sound good so far?
What functions need we account for?
*Education, learning.
*Building, making.
*Relating, associating.
So essentially we need a mutual aid society focused around expression in local group projects with a tool for sharing training and skills development.
I think that's our answer to the radical Party. Instead of a Party, we can build a mutual aid association.
What should we avoid?
*An excess of nouns and adjectives.
*Trying to unify beliefs through platforms and points of unity. The real "unity" should come through shared actions and projects.
*Taking positions on everything under the sun.
*Trying to be a "mass" organization or leading such an organization. Build a good system and people will participate in the projects they are drawn to.
This might ring a little shallow in the ears of some, and I can understand why. To be honest, I wasn't ready to reach this point myself until I understood that in our society, every cent of money and every second of time and attention taken away from the corporate-state nexus weakens it exactly that much. If people cook with friends on weekends instead of going to a chain restaurant, then there are no chain restaurants. If people brew their own beer instead of buying Coors, then there is no Coors. If people start their own shops instead of going for subsidized corporate products...well, you get the point. This isn't consumer activism and this isn't lifestylism. This is total, unbounded revolt.
The only way the Powers that be stay in power is by artificially limiting the possibilities of economic and cultural life and latching control over that artificial scarcity. The only way we fight them, completely, is by building new possibilities. If Power restricts and manages the world, then we will blow open a thousand new doors.
coming up: some examples to draw upon...