New Pamphlet Format: On the Historical Failure of Anarchism
Posted by Mike E on September 8, 2010
Thanks to Kersplebedeb we have a new printable version of this pamphlet.
This is a smaller black-and-white version — a pdf suitable for saddle-stitch stapling.
Previously available:
- Full size 8.5 x 11 pdf pamphlet size
- Web version on Kasama
The Historical Failure of Anarchism:
Implications for the Future of the Revolutionary Project
Chris Day’s essay “The Historical Failure of Anarchism” (1996) calls for a break with inherited anarchism. But this essay is about more than weaknesses and complacencies. It starts with a challenge to those who refuse to acknowledge or learn from their own failures… and who simply ascribe their own setbacks to the evil of others. In that sense, this essay is not just about “the historic failure of anarchism” but about “the future of the revolutionary project.”
Spirit of Zwickau said
I agree with the author’s pessimistic assessment of modern-day anarchism, however I disagree about certain historical points.
To me this is historical determinism that denies workers in “imperialized countries” their historical agency. What if it is in fact not necessary for said workers to engage in “capitalist (and usually state capitalist) revolutions” to “[sweep] away certain (horribly oppressive) pre-capitalist features”? Is the coercive imposition of proletarian labor discipline, ecological deterioration, etc. intrinsic to these “capitalist (and usually state capitalist) revolutions” genuinely helpful in “[sweeping] away certain (horribly oppressive) pre-capitalist features”, or is this simply ideological justification for further capitalist valorization?
Regardless it seems like a purely historical point, from my vantage point these “pre-capitalist features” have long been “swept away”. (Unless one argues that modern India or the Philippines or so forth is “semi-fuedal, semi-colonial”)
“The second proposition is that the achievment of a stateless classless society within the territorial limits of a single country (or otherwise defined territory) in a world of nation-states is impossible.”
In a sense this is true, however “a stateless classless society” is not something static and atomic, it is something organic and dynamic, a force that chews through the divisions of the nation-state like acid, constantly growing like a virus. The point is not just to achieve “a stateless classless society within the territorial limits of a single country (or otherwise defined territory)”, but to crush the territorial divisions of the capitalist nation-state, to spread the communist mode of existence across the globe like a wildfire. Communism is a monkey-wrench in “a world of nation-states”.
I think the historical precedent being drawn upon is that of Lenin. Again this seems like more historical determinism. In my mind Lenin was commenting on the failures of the Soviet state project, which could be avoided in future revolutions.
The question must be asked: What is the point of creating a “new state” that “will have to be smashed”? From a cost-benefit analysis this just seems like a waste. Why would we deliberately create something we know will fail us in the future? We should learn from mistakes, not repeats them.
I think the question is what should the “new state” look like, so that it doesn’t have to be “smashed” like the USSR? (I’m of the opinion that it should be totally decentralized, ‘democratic’, anti-industrial, etc.) There will be enough bloodshed and destruction as it is.
You could say the same thing about liberal or fascist revolutions.
I strongly disagree, “regular armies” due to their hierarchical and centralized nature are rigid and cumbersome from a tactical perspective, however they are essential for maintaining a capitalist bureaucracy. “Militias and other irregular forms of military organization” have their weaknesses but most importantly they are more conducive to creating human freedom, which is the primary goal of communism.
These are not questions of trivial or obscure importance but rather questions regarding the fundamental nature of revolution and the overthrow of capitalism.
Nate said
Smarter anarchists than me tell me this pamphlet is full of problems in its historical arguments, I’m trying to get some of them to write a reply. That aside, I’m curious why y’all care about this, not being anarchist. I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but, at first glance y’all publishing this seems like some pretty typical sectarianism and sniping at tendencies viewed as competitors. I have a lot of respect for Kasama so I assume that this is not actually the case. It would be nice to know what the motivations really are, though. I say this not least because I wish more anarchists would engage with Kasama, contemporary anarchism would be better for it.
take care,
Nate