Self-managed Marxism
and Anarchism
Nildo Viana
What is the
difference between self-managed Marxism (others use other names, but here it is
worth noting that we use self-managed Marxism as the form/name contemporary of
authentic Marxism, which has always been "self-managed" without using
such a word and merely to distinguish it from pseudomarxism, Leninism and its
derivatives and to express its contemporary manifestation) and anarchism? When
asked several times about it then becomes necessary to go more structured way
what distinguishes one from the other.
First, it
must be clear that it is the self-managed Marxism and not of any supposed
"Marxism" because the pseudomarxism Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist,
Maoist, guevarista, among others, are self-managed character deformations of
Marxism and so are more distant from anarchism. The self-managed Marxism has
close proximity to some elements of anarchism, especially its fundamental
principles. These fundamental principles would be the thesis of the immediate
abolition of the state apparatus, denial and criticism of the authorities and
forms of domination and social hierarchies. The self-managed Marxism also
points to such principles, but nevertheless, it is not "anarchist",
unless it is reduced anarchism that. Similarly, the self-managed Marxism is not
limited to this and has other fundamental principles, some of which are in some
specific currents of anarchism, sometimes not.
The
self-managed as Marxism has the following fundamental principles: the history
of class societies is the history of class struggle; the proletariat is the
revolutionary class of our time; proletarian self-emancipation (proletarian
revolution carried out by the working class and its allies) is the embodiment
of human emancipation (revolutionary humanism, concrete); self-management is
the essence of the new society that emerges after capitalism, not being
"part of it", but its essence and generalizing the set of social
relations; the proletarian revolution can only be victorious abolishing the
state and capital, without the ideology of "transitional period"; the
revolutionary organizations must have a revolutionary strategy and overcome
reboquismo and the avant-garde; bureaucracy is a counterrevolutionary class and
therefore must be fought, and all bureaucratic organizations (parties, unions,
state, etc.); cultural struggle is one of the key actions to be carried out by
revolutionary groups; it is necessary to unify the revolutionary strategy means
and ends and place as fundamental the ultimate goal (social ownership) and this
determines the means and derived it is necessary to prevent
counterrevolutionary concessions (participation in bourgeois democracy, for
example).
Thus, the self-managed Marxism has proximity to certain tendencies of
anarchism and removal of others. The self-managed Marxism is opposed to individualist
Anarchist and anarcho-syndicalism. The first is because of its bourgeois
character (individualistic) and the second to his relationship with the unions,
bureaucratic organizations (except for the beginning of capitalism, its heroic
period before the bureaucratization). It is also far from dogmatic anarchism,
which simplifies and reduces anarchism to certain ideas (or thinking of certain
anarchist thinker) that become dogma and reason for refusing to judge, condemn
all who do not fit them or not then all is "anarchism" (in the exact form that the dogmatic defined, ie its current and / or
interpretation).
In relation
to what we call revolutionary anarchism, in which the anarcho-coletivism and
anarchist communism fit, the differences are much smaller, provided that their
non-dogmatic demonstrations. In addition to the agreement with regard to
fundamental principles, there are other elements in common. No doubt this is
not to say, too, that there is no difference, but they are smaller both in the
matter of quantity and depth.
However, we
must clarify that there are general differences between self-managed Marxism
and anarchism in general, ie including all its chains. This is due to the fact
that Marxism (Marx, communism advice, self-managed Marxism) is theoretical and
political expression of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, which
means it is a theory whose purpose is to revolution and self-management. In
this sense, self-managed Marxism has a theoretical basis, from Marx's theory of
history, undergoing several other theories produced by him (over developing the
theory of the capitalist mode of production) and his followers, such as the
theory of workers' councils Anton Pannekoek and councilists communists, to the latest
and development and subsequent update. Anarchism is a political doctrine and
not a theory. That's what allows anarchism, even in its best expressions, ends
falling in eclecticism, using as base (methodological and / or theoretical)
bourgeois ideologies (classic positivism, post-structuralist positivism) and also
end up ending up with relative ease, due to its voluntarism, in dogmatism,
pragmatism, khvostism, revolutionary spirit.
This is not
a small difference, because when the bourgeois anarchism ends up taking
positions as theoretical or methodological basis, undertakes, as this ends up
intervening in the analysis of reality and therefore in political practice. A
mistaken analysis of reality generates decision-making and carrying out also
misguided actions. The methodological concepts and "theoretical"
(ideological) bourgeois, produced by various sciences (especially the
"human") have a whole evaluative basis, sentimental, rational and
interests that are closely linked to capitalist society and its reproduction
process. No need here to rescue the character of classic positivism of Comte
and others who had resonances in the works of Bakunin and other anarchists of
the time (Kropotkin, Reclus, etc.), and its relationship with the reproduction
of capitalism and conservative essence.
Similarly,
the counterrevolutionary character of post-structuralism
("postmodernism") is too obvious to be necessary to explain that,
starting from its methodological and ideological conceptions (supposedly
"theoretical") could make decisions and implement revolutionary
actions . Obviously in this case the revolutionary anarchism is somewhat
minimized, since it is united with revolutionary principles but ends up self-limiting
because of such a base. A methodological basis and bourgeois ideological
together with a revolutionary doctrine forms a eclecticism and depending on
which side of the balance weighs more, it can become, at worst, harmful to the
struggle for human liberation and, at best, somewhat limited and contradictory,
creating obstacles to their overall development. Of course you will still have
multiple nuances depending on the context, circumstances, individuals, etc.
However, the overcoming of eclecticism is essential for the revolutionary
anarchism assume the position which is consistent with its fundamental
principles.
We could
assume two possibilities for overcoming such. The first possibility would be to
adopt Marxism as their theoretical and methodological basis, the historical and
dialectical materialism (which includes not only the dialectical method, the
theory of history, as well as capitalist theory). The traditional rejection of
anarchism to use the historical and dialectical materialism is a huge obstacle
to overcome this problem. Such a refusal would have as a source conflicts
between Marx and anarchistic last, first, and subsequently pseudomarxismo and
anarchism. Moreover, it has the distinct positions of Proudhon and Bakunin,
among others, due influence of positivism. However, Bakunin accepted historical
materialism, despite not having properly understood, confusing it with the
bourgeois materialism and the positivist conception, as seen in his discussion
of materialism and the issue of "facts." This is an obstacle to more,
especially after the emergence of Leninism, ideological expression of
bureaucracy, which distorted the historical and dialectical materialism,
according to the interests of the party bureaucracy and Russian state
capitalism and ended up generalizing and becoming the dominant version the
"Marxism". This is another obstacle to a real understanding of
historical and dialectical materialism, which brings the need to resume the
production of Marx and his best followers (Labriola, Korsch, the young Lukács
in some respects, Pannekoek, etc.).
The second
possibility would be anarchism generate, in an original way, their own
theoretical and methodological basis. This solution, however, would be merely
formal, ie a language change, as the historical and dialectical materialism has
pointed to the essential elements in this process and it would be just the same
idea in another form, a new linguistic form to a concept already Existing. The
only advantage of this solution would appease the minds of dogmatic anarchists
and not have to refer to Marxism, something so childish and childlike that only
makes sense, of the self-managed Marxist perspective, for from the idea that
the struggle and its content is more important and can make this kind of
concession not affect the revolutionary process.
In this
sense, self-managed Marxism and the revolutionary anarchism have close and
differences, common points and differences in points, and in some cases the
difference is radical, express distinct class positions, the proletarian
perspective of self-managed Marxism in confronting bourgeois perspective or of
another class of dogmatic anarchism, anarcho-individualism or
anarcho-syndicalism; in other cases, the difference is reduced but not
abolished, because due to several other minor differences, immediate political
action, situations, idiosyncrasies, understanding of reality, design of action,
terminological differences, etc., that may intensify or minimize.
Anyway, in
relation to the anarchist tendencies that are not allies of the revolutionary
proletariat [1], the position of the self-managed Marxism is critical and
combat, as well as advancement of hope towards a revolutionary perspective, and
in practice depends on the positions and concrete actions, which trend (human
emancipation via proletarian revolution or vanguardism-khvostism reinforcing
the counterrevolution) strengthens this process. If the trends of anarchism
that are allied to the revolutionary proletariat, the position of the
self-managed Marxism is of alliance and joint struggle, as long as they
maintain their consistency in this regard.
In short,
self-managed Marxism and revolutionary anarchism are close, but different and
what interests in their approach is the contribution to human emancipation, and
the approaching or the distance is the proximity or distance in relation to
this goal, self-managed proletarian revolution .
[1]
revolutionary proletariat means the self-determined working class, that is,
that breaks with the capitalist relations of production, with the capital. This
differs from the proletariat as a class determined by capital, that is, seeking
only to survive or improve their situation within capitalism (performing only
fight vindicating), which is the starting point for the fight and move towards
becoming self-determined, but that for this reason it is necessary to wage a
fight to go in this direction and the militant and revolutionary organizations
should from the perspective of the proletariat as self-determined class. Stay
at the level of the proletariat as a particular class (by saying
"anarchist", "councilist", "situationist", etc.)
is falling in reboquismo, a reformist position despite not having ties with the
bourgeois institutions. The voluntarism, pragmatism, anti-intellectualism,
among other things, are very close to these positions, very common in
anarchism. This is the product of its doctrinal character and non-theoretical.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário