[Peace-discuss] The Revolutiona ry Communist Party says.
Brussel
brussel at illinois.edu
Tue Jan 13 21:56:47 CST 2009
Just to add a bit to this conversation… Staughton Lynd was one of my
heros at the time of the Vietnam war, speaking up at Yale. He has
since devoted his life to working with/for laboring people in Ohio. --
mkb
Wobblies and Zapatistas
by Staughton Lynd and Andrej Grubacic
1. Can you tell ZNet, please, what Wobblies and Zapatistas is about?
What is it trying to communicate?
Staughton: The book is about the need for Marxists and anarchists to
lay down their ideological weapons and create a single Left
resistance to what capitalism is doing to the world. The hostility
between the two traditions is a little like a feud between extended
families handed down from generation to generation: Hatfields and
McCoys in American history, or the families of Romeo and Juliet. In
reality Marxism and anarchism should be like two hands, the one
analyzing the structure of things, the other throwing up unending
prefigurative initiatives. Neither tradition has been so successful
that it can speak of the other with lofty dismissal or contempt. We
need each other.
Andrej: Our way of distancing ourselves from this Shakespearean
relationship between anarchism and Marxism is by using the notion of
direct action and accompaniment. In so doing we arrive at a
"Haymarket synthesis," recently revived by the Zapatistas, a
synthesis that we see emerging over and over again throughout
American history. We start with the Haymarket anarchists and the so
called "Chicago idea"; we go on to explore histories of such
movements as the Industrial Workers of the World, Zapatistas, as well
as individuals, such as Simone Weil or Edward Thompson, who sought a
fusion between these two traditions. By accompaniment we mean a
specific form of mutual aid and praxis where the activist and the
oppressed person walk side by side, sharing bread, as the phrase
goes, sharing specific knowledge and experience. We speak about a
relation between direct action and theory. Both Staughton and myself
are very weary of recent fashionable "high theory" that speaks in
"multitudes," and that tends to be, well, incomprehensible; we
advocate instead a "low theory," a theory that arises from practice,
as well as what Staughton describes above as a structural analysis of
things. We think that the new movement needs to be concerned with
strategy and program, that it needs to develop a serious strategy and
a serious program, that anarchists need to learn how to swim in the
sea of the people, and that we need to do our best to re-create a
truly non-sectarian community of struggle that would resemble the
experience of mass working class movements such as the one of the
Chicago anarchists who "invented a peculiar brand of socialism" of
the sort that we advocate in the book.
2. Can you tell ZNet something about writing the book? Where does the
content come from? What went into making the book what it is?
Andrej: Staughton came into my life quite unexpectedly. When I
decided to move from Yugoslavia I was thinking about writing about
some serious stuff that is now popular in academia, such as post-
colonial theory or something of the sort. Meeting Staughton destroyed
my academic career, and sent me back to a world of serious politics
and intellectual engagement with the world outside of the library.
Now, somewhat more seriously, my encounter with the fascinating life
of Staughton Lynd came at the moment when I was trying to understand
why the global movement, the so called anti-globalist movement, is in
such a crisis. I thought that a conversation, or, rather, a series of
conversations, between a youngish Balkan anarchist who organized for
many years in zapatista-inspired direct action global movements, and
a seasoned American revolutionary, influenced by Marxism, who has
been part of every single major struggle in postwar American history,
would be useful to younger activists. I had in mind Students for
Democratic Society and the Industrial Workers of the World, both of
whom were "reinvented" in recent years. Belgrade and Youngstown and
much closer than they appear on the map. The bridge between the two
crosses the Lacondonian jungle and bypasses respectable institutions
of higher learning.
Staughton: It was basically Andrej's idea and it was continually he
who posed the next question, and the next. The form of the book
brings us back to the fact that communication between human beings is
basically a conversation. Think of the encounter between the white
pacifist and the African American (James Earl Jones) designated to
kill him in Matewan, Ignazio Silone's "Dialogue with Christina" in
Bread and Wine, Marechal and Rosenthal in Grand Illusion, the
inquiries of Socrates, the parables of Jesus.
3. What are your hopes for Wobblies and Zapatistas? What do you hope
it will contribute or achieve politically? Given the effort and
aspirations you have for the book, what will you deem to be a
success? What would leave you happy about the whole undertaking? What
would leave you wondering if it was worth all the time and effort?
Staughton: On the internet this morning (December 20, 2008) one reads
of an Iraqi journalist throwing his shoes at President Bush, of
Israeli 12th graders refusing to be part of a military occupying the
West Bank, of rank-and-file Greek workers occupying the offices of
the trade union federation to prevent that bureaucratic organization
from suppressing the spontaneous happenings in the streets and local
town halls. Such courageous acts need to be understood as something
broader than the conscientious refusal of individuals to become part
of the pattern of things intended by last-stage capitalism and its
creature, the state. That broader resistance began with the
"Basta!" (enough!) of the Zapatistas and with their idea of "mandar
obediciendo": those in positions of authority must govern in
obedience to what Marcos calls "the below," that is, us. We are
united by affirmation of the "other world" envisioned by protesters
at Seattle.
There is a tradition in the United States started by Paine and
carried forward by other working-class intellectuals like William
Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Albert Parsons (in his speech to
the jury before being sentenced to death), and Eugene Debs, which
says: We are citizens of the world. This, together with the horrors
of World War II, is where the UN Declaration of Human Rights originated.
Andrej: We need to declare Marxist vanguardism dead. Enough of
colonialism and colonizers, of countries and of factories. We need
to discover new ways of doing politics. Accompaniment, as well as an
"internationalism of the heart," this beautiful tradition according
to which "my country is the world," are good guiding concepts for the
yet unexplored territory of an innovative revolutionary practice that
brings together the historical experience of Bartolomeo Vanzzeti and
Subcommandante Marcos, of Rosa Luxemburg and indigenous Bolivia. We
hope that our book might be a contribution to a serious discussion
about building a movement rooted in the experience of ordinary
people, and not the one of a Marxist or anarchist "professoriat," a
movement that refuses to "seize" or be seized by the power of the
State, a movement that is horizontal and organized from below.
Information about the book and about the authors
Wobblies and Zapatistas offers the reader an encounter between two
generations and two traditions. Andrej Grubacic is an anarchist from
the Balkans. Staughton Lynd is a lifelong pacifist, influenced by
Marxism. They meet in dialogue in an effort to bring together the
anarchist and Marxist traditions, to discuss the writing of history
by those who make it, and to remind us of the idea that "my country
is the world." Encompassing a Left libertarian perspective and an
emphatically activist standpoint, these conversations are meant to be
read in the clubs and affinity groups of the new Movement.
The authors accompany us on a journey through modern revolutions,
direct actions, anti-globalist counter summits, Freedom Schools,
Zapatista cooperatives, Haymarket and Petrograd, Hanoi and Belgrade,
'intentional' communities, wildcat strikes, early Protestant
communities, Native American democratic practices, the Workers'
Solidarity Club of Youngstown, occupied factories, self-organized
councils and soviets, the lives of forgotten revolutionaries, Quaker
meetings, antiwar movements, and prison rebellions. Neglected and
forgotten moments of interracial self-activity are brought to light.
The book invites the attention of readers who believe that a better
world, on the other side of capitalism and state bureaucracy, may
indeed be possible.
Reviews:
"There's no doubt that we've lost much of our history. It's also very
clear that those in power in this country like it that way. Here's a
book that shows us why. It demonstrates not only that another world
is possible, but that it already exists, has existed, and shows an
endless potential to burst through the artificial walls and divisions
that currently imprison us. An exquisite contribution to the
literature of human freedom, and coming not a moment too soon."
--David Graeber, author of Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology and
Direct Action: An Ethnography
"In these desperate, often tragic, times, we look backward, forward,
even to our dreams to be able to keep imagining a world in which
justice may be part of more people's lives. We look to lives lived
before ours, to stories and their meanings, to strategies culled from
the worlds of politics or ancient wisdoms. We look in Africa, Asia,
Latin America, Europe, and here in the United States. We are willing
to entertain any new idea or revamped strategy. Staughton Lynd's life
and work put him in a unique position to seek out someone like
Grubacic, ask the pertinent questions, and tell the meaningful
stories. Grubacic's experience perfectly compliments Lynd's. Here we
have the best of a non-dogmatic Marxism listening to a most creative
and humane anarchism. But this book is never weighted down by
unforgiving theory. Just the opposite: it is a series of
conversations where the reader feels fully present. It provides a
marvelous framework for enriching the conversation that's never
really stopped: about how we may make this world a better place."
--Margaret Randall, author of Sandino's Daughters, When I Look Into
the Mirror and See You, and Narrative of Power
About the Authors:
Staughton Lynd taught American history at Spelman College and Yale
University. He was director of Freedom Schools in the 1964
Mississippi Freedom Summer. An early leader of the movement against
the Vietnam War, he was blacklisted and unable to continue as an
academic. He then became a lawyer, and in this capacity has assisted
rank-and-file workers and prisoners for the past thirty years. He has
written, edited, or co-edited with his wife Alice Lynd more than a
dozen books.
Andrej Grubacic is a dissident from the Balkans. A radical historian
and sociologist, he is the author of Globalization and Refusal and
the forthcoming titles: Hidden History of American Democracy and The
Staughton Lynd Reader. A fellow traveler of Zapatista-inspired direct
action movements, in particular Peoples' Global Action, and a co-
founder of Global Balkans Network and Balkan Z Magazine, he is a
visiting professor of sociology at the University of San Francisco.
>
> People through the ages have imagined what they conceive of as a
> better world or system of governance. In working for their ideals
> they have (often) kept things from even getting worse, and not
> infrequently have improved the general lot and illuminated the
> problems of societal existence.. I'll let you-all think of
> examples. Saying that nothing can be constructively done means that
> it is more likely that nothing will get done. Nirvana may be
> illusory, but its a good (useful) exercise to conceive of it..
> Society needs its motivations, hope. .
>
> I think I'm getting in too deep… --mkb
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:20 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
>> Just for the sake of provoking the discussion, I offer the following
>> comments:
>>
>> 1. " Oddly, both the radical Marxist and the radical Libertarian
>> camps tend
>> to
>> ignore human nature, designing societies for hypothetical beings
>> if pure
>> reason. So I think they are not as different as they appear
>> superficially."
>>
>> Not so oddly; both do not tend to ignore human nature as much as
>> they both
>> make the assumptions of the historic period that they came out of
>> philosophically (i.e., the Enlightenment) in that they both
>> presume man to
>> be a rational animal and the world to be a rational place capable of
>> understanding, knowing, and controlling if not molding. While the
>> Libertarians assume an English Liberal tradition of a Utilitarian
>> bent
>> coming out of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, James Mills, Jeremy
>> Bentham, and
>> J.S. Mills as their basic grounding; Marxists come out of the
>> Continental
>> Idealist tradition assuming a less atomistic and more organic bent
>> (i.e.,
>> the whole is greater than its parts and gestalt approach) which
>> came out of
>> Comte, Saint-Simon, Hegel, etc. as their basis.
>>
>> 2. " I think that Christianity gets it right in a lot of ways. I
>> would say
>> that
>> rights are inherent and that the capacity of people for folly is
>> not to be
>> underestimated."
>>
>> Aside from disagreeing with the whole notion of "inherent
>> rights," I think
>> that Christianity and its doctrines tend to be a little confused
>> if not
>> uncertain about the estimating the capacity of people for folly,
>> depending
>> on if one gives priority to pre-determination or free will. If
>> one holds
>> pre-determination as the prime directive, then people have no
>> capacity for
>> folly; God has the capacity for folly and people do as they are
>> pre-ordained. If one accepts free will as the prime directive,
>> then the
>> notion of inherent rights as formulated is undermined; but people
>> have great
>> capacity for folly although without some overarching absolute plan
>> that is
>> capable of being known it is hard to define folly or
>> irrationality, or
>> deviance/sin.
>>
>>
>> 3. "A more orthodox Christian position would be that rights
>> are God-given and that people are prone to sin. No matter which
>> way it is
>> said, if these statements are correct then human nature represents
>> a severe
>> constraint on what sort of political systems will work and how
>> well they
>> will work."
>>
>> Again leaving aside my disagreement and assuming for the sake of the
>> discussion that these statements are correct, then I have to ask
>> if human
>> nature does not represent a severe constraint on what political
>> system is
>> possible, if any at all will work, and/or if they could work well
>> enough to
>> be significantly different from none at all.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Bob
>> Illyes
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:33 AM
>> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Revolutiona ry Communist Party says.
>>
>> John and Noam are addressing roughly the same issue, in my
>> opinion. "An
>> instinct for freedom" is a way for saying that human nature
>> matters when
>> designing a political system or strategy.
>>
>> Oddly, both the radical Marxist and the radical Libertarian camps
>> tend to
>> ignore human nature, designing societies for hypothetical beings
>> if pure
>> reason. So I think they are not as different as they appear
>> superficially.
>>
>> I think that Christianity gets it right in a lot of ways. I would
>> say that
>> rights are inherent and that the capacity of people for folly is
>> not to be
>> underestimated. A more orthodox Christian position would be that
>> rights
>> are God-given and that people are prone to sin. No matter which
>> way it is
>> said, if these statements are correct then human nature represents
>> a severe
>> constraint on what sort of political systems will work and how
>> well they
>> will work.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> -------------
>> Carl posted: "If you assume that there's no hope, you guarantee
>> that there
>> will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for
>> freedom, there
>> are opportunities to change things, there's a chance for you to
>> contribute
>> to making a better world. That's your choice." --Noam Chomsky
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>> ... The generic, unspecified "revolution" as the solution to all the
>>> enumerated ills of the capitalist system - which the Communists/
>>> Socialists
>>> always do a pretty good job of enumerating. *yawn* Been there,
>>> tried to do
>>> that.
>>> In my dotage I disagree most profoundly with this statement by
>>> Chairman
>> Bob:
>>> "What has proven to be possible-and what has proven NOT to be
>>> possible-has
>>> nothing to do with "human nature" or "personal responsibility"...and
>>> everything to do with the system that was put in place to ensure
>>> "the
>> dreams
>>> of our founders." I now know most assuredly and emphatically
>>> that there IS
>>> such a thing as "human nature", which goes a very long way toward
>> determining
>>> the types of self-seeking "systems" we humans put in place and
>>> have ALWAYS
>>> put in place. Unless "human nature" is understood and taken into
>>> account,
>>> there is absolutely no possibility that human society can ever
>>> improve.
>> Our
>>> Founders tried to take human nature into account with their
>>> system of
>> checks
>>> and balances, but of course they did it in such a way as to leave
>>> many
>>> loopholes in which they could protect their own privileged status.
>>> JBW
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090113/3dc7820c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list