[Peace-discuss] The Revolutiona ry Communist Party says.

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Carl,
Do the Zapatistas arm themselves with footwear?

Brussel wrote:
> 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 Zapatista/s? 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>
>>> [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 <mailto: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 
>>> <mailto: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 
>>> <mailto: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/b904d48a/attachment.htm