Morse: On Being A Bookchinite
- Details
- Category: Environment
- Created on Thursday, 31 January 2008 16:12
- Written by Mike Ely
Since we published the 9 Letters to Our Comrades, some of the most intriguing responses have come from outside our expected Maoist audiences. People have written to us from other revolutionary and leftist trends and said that our criticisms, hopes and direction echoes with their own experiences and frustrations.
I say "intriguing" because there is much I don't know about this. I am not yet sure exactly how our criticisms of the RCP and Avakian's new synthesis get at problems that are general with a larger range of left projects. But we am eager to share more about it.
One of the interesting responses came from Chuck Morse, a well-known figure among anarchists (and someone well-known for a certain, uh, antipathy toward revolutionary communism and Maoism.) Chuck recently posted an invitation here on Kasama to read his own summation of involvement within an anarchist circle around Murry Bookchin (who recently died).
I found Chuck's story engrossing and revealing -- and not just about anarchism (obviously) but about the dynamics of groups set on changing the world
, who find that the world is resistant to their particular schema. This is (to me) not so much about the mysteries of individual psychologies, but about how we can reach a theoretical and political synthesis that actually connects with large numbers of people and enable them to change reality in urgently needed revolutionary directions.
Bookchin is someone whose "social ecology" works I have always sought out and read over many years -- despite obvious disagreements with Bookchin's worldview. I found there in his books many thought-provoking insights into the connections between the growing ecological catastrophe under capitalism and the still-lagging struggle for revolutionary society. His work was particularly irresistible because we have never produced anything comparable "on the Maoist side" (despite the subjective desire of many of us to create such a revolutionary communist exploration.) We Maoists would say "Only Revolution Can Save the Planet" -- but it remained an assertion whose truth was more appreciated and discussed outside our ranks than inside -- and it was a form of assertion that somehow seemed to pooh-pooh the work and research of others. (One exception is the A World To Win series on global warming which I will soon cross-post here on Kasama.)
Anyway, Back to the Main Point here....
Chuck's critical (but loving) overview of Bookchin's political and theoretical project has many particularities, but who can read this and not recognize experiences we have had, dynamics we have seen, and brick walls we have run into?
I am eager to read (and post) assessments and discussions of the situation within other radical political trends -- explorations of things tried and dead ends discovered, or limitations of forms of organization or the false lure of liberal liquidation. Let's put our heads together.
People in this conversation
Comments (4)
-
Guest (Mike)
PermalinkHello,
I just wanted to chime in as an anarchist and say that I too have noticed the similarities between Chuck's reflection and Mike's (along with lots of differences, of course). I'm about half-way through the "9 Letters" and despite my perhaps predictable rejection of Maoism I am so far impressed by Mike's open analysis. What you all call "summing up" is an important process for any revolutionary tendency, and we need to see more of this sort of critical examination.
Solidarity,
Mike0 Like -
I also want to explore a larger "summation" of problems with the "hundred schools of thought" with revolutionary intent.
How do we connect a radical anti-capitalist understanding to the political actions of those oppressed by capitalism?
How do we speak a language that people (broadly) can understand (and either agree with or disagree with)?
How do we identify and unite with the "advanced" (as we might variously define that) to create a real material force in society that can influence (neutralize or win over) the more intermediate?
Someone said to me something I've been thinking about for months:
He said society can be (loosely and a bit simplistically) divided into two chunks, those who <em>already know</em> how fucked things are, and those who (willfully or not) are insulated from that basic knowledge. And he pointed out that those who "already know" are all "Chomskyed out" -- meaning they've read the exposures of the environment, the corporate madness, the war, the torture, the domestic abuse.... and just providing more exposure of the crimes and horrors of the world system and capitalism strikes them as demoralizing... because on so many levels they can't "see" what can be done to change (overthrow) this order. So more exposure just hammers home as more proof that "everything is fucked."
How do we turn those dynamics around? How to we help the more conscious forces see the possibility of radical change and become a more organized and powerful force hammering down the ignorance and illusions of still larger sections? How do we put the real possibility and urgent desirability of a revolutionary alternative (socialist) society onto the political stage again and what does that alternative now look like (for us and humanity)? What part of that process is done by challenging anti-communist summations about the twentieth century? What part is showing that a revolutionary society "springs from every pore" of this sick and oppressive global present?
How do we put forward a compelling "vision" of a radically different future, without falling into the invented schematic predictions and prescriptions that characterize Avakian's synthesis (or, in a different way, many anarchist and Wobbly approaches)?
How do we "unite broadly" without sliding down the slope of forgetting, or hiding, or downplaying, or postponing real revolutionary political work that "lights the sky" and attracts those already eager to live and die for radical change?
How do we "go through the process" together with the radically discontent -- as they (inevitably) search for solutions and philosophy for solving key problems, and as we and they are transformed together into a living force?
I want to help organize a process where we wrestle with these problems -- both by analyzing the present and by critically analyzing our own past.0 Like -
Guest (Chuck Morse)
PermalinkI think you posed a series of excellent questions in your comment, Mike... and thank you for highlighting my article. I appreciate that, and I'm glad that parts of it were relevant to the questions that you're asking about the RCP. I do tend to think that left wing sects, like religious sects, have more commonalities than differences.
0 Like -
Guest (T)
PermalinkI would just like to add that I am a student organizer who has worked with the RCP, SDS, and other groups. I have lately been really struggling and losing some sleep over many of the questions that relate to building a rev movement, and actually being effective.
What struck a chord with me about this post was that it gets at a very important point for me. The tendency seems to be to transform the inner core's theoretical understanding of the chairs work which takes the form of extremely long winded "study groups" overflowing with "engagement and wrangling" which usually takes the form of restating the ideas with different words. Well frankly this has left an enormous trail of people who have come into contact with the RCP out of a real desire to build for revolution, and then subsequently ended in isolation and finally rejection of the party.
This speaks to the fact that there is huge potential for a cohesive revolutionary group to take shape at this particular moment. People are desperate for it. The RCP is doing a lot of things wrong and this page is a great start to actually summing up and then rebuilding from that summation. I also appreciate greatly that it is not just a site dedicated to gossip and unprincipled slander.
There have been a few posts about how theory and practice must be much more closely alligned. Now it seems that people on this site are very well versed in the international communist movement and its theoretical implications. I was wondering if someone could speak more to the idea of actually challenging the states authority and pushing some boundaries. I think Mike briefly spoke to this in one of his posts. How do people see the need to actually lead (not tail) the masses in strategic stand offs against the state. By leading I don't mean, be the keynote speaker or write an article criticizing the days events, but actually assert some leadership and determination to actually stand up to the state and start fighting, and yes winning, some battles.
One example would be the host of police murders in chicago. After one particular cold blooded killing of a youth things got very heated and large sections of youth and elders confronted the police at the local police station. There were rival gangs who were clearly cooperating and much political agitation was occuring. The police were extremely frightened and the scene was quite invigorating. However the general anger began to wane a little and then police began isolating and arresting the more politically advanced "gang members" and the situation began to deteriorate. A situation like that shows the extreme potential for real revolutionary leadership to seize on contradictions IF they were rooted and connected to those communities. Unfortunately we aren't there yet...0 Like
Sustain Kasama
Latest Comments
Latest Open Threads
Kasama is a communist project for the forcible overthrow and transformation of all existing social conditions. We are open to learning, unafraid to admit our own uncertainties. We will not shrink from what we do know: the solutions cannot be found within the current world order or the choices it provides. We are for revolution. We seek to find the forms of organization and action for the people most dispossessed by this system to free themselves and all humanity.
To take this road, we need a fearless, open-eyed debate, discussion and engagement. We need fresh analyses of the rapid changes shaping the world around us. We need to sum up a century of revolutionary strategies and attempts, victories and defeats – instead of the conventional wisdom and facile verdicts that paralyze our movements. We need to re-imagine a radical politics that can take life among people and move mountains.
Dig in.