Dinosaurs with
lasers are calling for it. Black cats in ties are demanding it. Unicorns and
rainbows are wishing for it. But what is really behind the call for General
Strikes…
There are frayed
threads running throughout the fabric of Occupy. Taking form mostly to call for
“FTP” marches, General Strikes, and unanimous consensus in the movement- except
when it comes to the autonomy of diverse tactics. These threads take on many,
or proactively “no” label, but can be identified as ultra-left. The theories
and debates of these threads, once pulled in a practical motion, begin to
unravel. What follows is another humble tug[1].
The term ‘ultra
left’ carries with it a certain historical weight that must be taken into
consideration. The goal here is not to resurrect past debates nor shadow box
old enemies, or to cast contemporaries into the mold of contenders for past
movements. An honest question must be posed and an equally responsible answer
given. Can activists within the Occupy movement be accurately represented as
ultra-left? Or more artfully, do tendencies within Occupy bear the historical
mantel of Ultra-leftism both in content as well as in form. Is the answer yes
or no, both or either?
Historically,
the Ultra Left can be traced back to the onset of the modern era. In the French
Revolution, the ultra left were known as the Les Enrages[2].
Les Enragés were a loose amalgam of
radicals active during the French Revolution. Politically they stood to the
left of the Jacobins, and believed that liberty for all meant more than just
constitutional rights. The demands of the Enragés included: price controls on
grain, repression of counterrevolutionary activity, progressive income tax to
be immediately implemented. In the 19th Century the revolutionary Louis Auguste Blanqui[3] typified the perspectives of an elite
clique of revolutionaries that called for general insurrections in the abstract
hope that the masses were to follow them.
In the early
twentieth century, the ultra left perspective was contextualized by the
hegemonic positions of the Bolshevik parties on the revolutionary left in
general, placing ‘Ultras’ on the extreme left flank of the Marxist tradition.
These tendencies favored the autonomy and spontaneous self-organization of the
working class, argued for abstention from national electoral politics, eschewed
trade union activity outside of revolutionary unionism, and called for no
collusion with the bourgeois state. The articulation and practical application
of these perspectives set ultra-leftists in opposition to both Bolshevism and reformism
typified by Leninism[4] and social
democracy respectively.
These ultra-left
tendencies bore strong affinities toward anarchist politics. The conquest of
political power by the Russian proletariat in 1917 sent such reverberations
through the world that authentic revolutionaries were drawn into the orbit of
the Bolsheviks. The Belgian anarchist Victor Serge became one of the finest
historians of the Russian Revolutionary experience. In the United States, such
outstanding figures of the Syndicalist left as Bill Big Haywood and James
Cannon became founding members of the American communist movement. Emma
Goldman likewise, for a time, lent critical support to the Bolsheviks.
Anarchists played
an important role in support for the Soviet government as well as in the
propagation of communistic principles throughout the world. Some, like Serge
freely supported the Bolshevik program until his death at a date well
beyond the Stalinist disfiguration of the Russian Revolution. Others such as
Goldman pivoted quickly from support to outrage at state repression within
Soviet Russia. Still others joined left-communist tendencies propagated by
figures such as the Dutch Marxist Anton Pannoekek, and the Italian communist
Amadeo Bordiga, posturing the hard left stances enumerated above.
In answer to the
question “Does the Ultra Left today carry the mantel of yesterday,” let us
argue in the affirmative. Though many activists have traded Bordiga for
Bakunin, they bear witness to the tradition in practice of the Ultra Left,
especially in regards to the trade union question.
Today the ultra-left
perspective occupies much of the same position as it did nearly a century ago,
though ultra-left tendencies now fall under the general arc of contemporary
Anarchism rather than Marxist communism. Just as ultra-left hostility toward Bolshevism
and reformism remains intact, so too does a tactical penchant for political
abstentionism, no compromises with the capitalist state, and no collusion with
reformist trade unions. The terrain upon which the tendency rests has changed,
but not its position upon it.
The significant
differences between then and now are questions of political terrain and
climate. Nowhere today does the proletariat hold state power, nor likewise are
mass revolutionary political parties contending for state power, nor are there
tendencies within these parties vying for the allegiance of millions of
workers. The congealing effect of the Occupy movement has, however,
brought many disparate tendencies back together under one roof and has
re-sparked many of the past debates. Similarly, the spike in struggle in other
areas of the world has ignited new arguments about fight back in a world of
turmoil.
Today the
hegemony of the Marxist tradition over the revolutionary left has been broken
and the left generally has been beaten back and atomized. The failure of the
Bolshevik revolution to spark a world revolution and the distortion of Bolshevism
by Stalinism were the first cracks in the Marxist edifice. The disrepute of
Stalinism to the world was ensued by the collapse of the Eastern Block and the
creation of Chinese Communist billionaires. Activists serious about changing
the world began leaving the official Communist parties in the 1920’s and never
looked back.
But the
narrative failures on the Marxist left during the Twentieth Century only
partially explains the state of the left today. We must also take into account
the activity of the world ruling class, its wars and interventions, its Red
Scares, and its ability to stay thus far in power in the face of economic
disasters and mass discontent.
Today’s left was
rendered defeated, disparate and sect ridden. The activist left suffering blow
after blow from the employer’s offensive; the academic left floundering within
identity politics and privilege theory; neither of these bodies collaborating
much with one another to prove the other false. So an honest assessment of the
sincere left today is much needed. This assessment reveals that the dominant
political trend is some variant of Anarchism. That is not to say that Anarchism
is hegemonic, which implies a certain level of like-mindedness that is missing
from the anarchist movement of today. But the lack of a cohesive organizational
line to come out of the left for the past 30 years has broken fertile ground
for an upsurge in anarchist groupings that require little more than a hostility
toward Capitalism and the conviction to do something about it.
Ultra-left tendencies
bring with them obstacle ridden debate into growing movements. This is rooted
in the tendency’s principles and practice to push against growth, and to emphasize
a culling of the movement for the sake of political purity. There is impotence
in this so-called purity. Why? Because it disempowers, it removes struggle from
the realm of mass collective activity and it sequesters it to the corners of
the “most militant” the “most radical.” Nonsense! The most radical thing to do
is help push an existing struggle to victory and learn a thing or two from the
workers fighting alongside you! Their struggle marginalization is conservatism
in action. They react with anxiety toward liberal groups or individuals within
the movement. Their actions are cast as romantic revolutionary struggles, which
they intend to serve as a “wake up call” to the masses. The cascading brick,
the smashed window; clouds of tear gas spreading thick across an urban
landscape. This is the currency of the Ultra Left today.
In the Occupy movement,
it has been these groupings that have contextualized much of the movement’s
outlook and action. Anarchism and Ultra-Leftism have now become synonymous
terms. Horizontalism and consensus are evident expressions of anarchist methodology
within Occupy. It is these groups on the left that are fueling perspectives on
diversity of tactics, and calls for general strikes.
Horizontalism is
an organizing model that advocates the creation, development and maintenance of
structures for the equitable distribution of management power. These structures
and relationships function as a result of dynamic self-management, involving
continuous participation and exchange between individuals to achieve the larger
desired outcomes of the collective. This sounds like a progressive egalitarian
model, except in practice it is far from it. Under this model, a body of leadership that could be seen as
above the movement is abandoned for a clique within the movement. Far from horizontal,
the method is elitist to the core. While propagating a model that seems
egalitarian is creates a space for unaccountable, non-elected leadership that
operates as an unofficial cliquish apparatus that doesn’t have to answer to the
movement as a whole. This creates an inherently elitist grouping that calls for
the respect of diverse tactics while remaining aloof from the main current of
the movement. It’s groupings like these that consistently champion the
consensus decision making model as well.
Consensus in
practice is just as stodgy and potentially dangerous to decision making as
Horizontalism is to leading. Consensus is defined by first, general agreement,
and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It is used to describe
both the decision and the process of reaching a decision- requiring a unanimous
vote to proceed on the matter in question. Without unanimous consent an issue
is tabled, or dies. It also can manifest a tyranny of the minority, where a
small clique of individuals can prevent certain issues from moving forward-
this sort of voting bloc lends itself to infiltrators or fringe political line.
In practice,
these perspectives force debate and discussion outside of the movement. Not
only does consensus establish a functional base for a minority of activists to
block the will of the majority, it also critically hinders the decision-making
bodies of the movement. In Occupy,
when faced with the prospect of hours long debates in the General Assemblies,
many activists opted to work in smaller committees or specialized working groups
in order to accomplish a given task. Debates were therefore taken out of the
General Assemblies because consensus model made them too unwieldy.
Horizontalism
and consensus practically put brakes on a movement. A practical remedy put
forward by the ultra left is ‘diversity of tactics.’ Here again with perhaps
little more than a nod for approval toward the General Assemblies, debate is
taken away from the mass participatory engines of the movement and placed
within the purview of a handful of activists. Lost in this process is any
general discussion about strategy or movement perspectives as a whole. Under
the guise of acceptance and respect for different tendencies within the
movement, the movement itself is atomized into semi-random ‘one off actions,’
again narrowing the field of active participation for most members of the
movement.
The culmination
of these perspectives is the opening for a clique of likeminded activists to
act in the name of the movement and yet operate with wonton independence. These
are the activists who with improvised shields engaged the police in a violent
square off in Oakland last winter and then broke into and vandalized City Hall.
Our criticism is relative to the content of these actions which by their nature
reduce the number of activists who can and will participate in them, and also
that these actions where planned and initiated outside of the decision making
bodies of Occupy Oakland.
Let’s examine
diversity of tactics in practice. By necessity fewer people can participate.
This narrows the goal of galvanizing people to call for action. If you need
smaller insurgent groups to instigate an action, your goal is not to outreach
to communities, campuses, churches, unions etc. The object of an
insurrectionary campaign in our current political climate doesn’t resonate with
everyday people who are presently rediscovering that their voice and
participation in direct action matters. The object doesn’t allow everyday
people to lead the struggle; it can actually keep them from participating in a
movement where they feel directly threatened from forces within.
Counter-intuitive
though it may seem, in practice these left anarchist tendencies are
conservative and elitist. Conservative in that they hamper the movement’s
growth and limit its participatory capacity, elitist in that they create
cliques to carry out actions in the name of the movement that are not beholden
to it. Let us instead have official, accountable, and recallable bodies based
on a simple majority mandate.
The calls for
General Strikes are the most forward articulation of ultra-leftism within
Occupy. These calls revolve around the principle that the traditional
mechanisms for mass working class mobilization have been compromised and
weakened by the onslaught of capital in the late twentieth century. Unions therefore
are circumvented in favor of “new and imaginative” methods of struggle--methods
that don’t come with the mess of confronting union bureaucracies or mixed
consciousness within the rank and file. Getting hands dirty was the old way of
doing things. General Strike calls are meant to draw out the most advanced
workers from among the unorganized (the so-called 89%) to expose them to the
‘idea’ of a strike, or to otherwise allow them the opportunity to participate
in a mass action.
But calls for
these general strikes are really propagations for the notion of a strike
generally, or more succinctly a strike in the abstract. Since all the requisite
processes for developing a truly general strike, in which a multiplicity of
unions, support organizations, unemployment councils, etc. strike together in
solidarity, are either bypassed for being non-existent, or otherwise shunned as
conservatively unresponsive, bureaucratized apparatuses - a general strike, in
the historical sense is not being called. And we are sorry, but no amount of
cute, or ironic images using cats or unicorns is going to change this fact. I
can haz historical conditions plz? LOL[5]
Such abstract strikes
are taken up based on an analysis of the economic climate as well as impatience
with the development of the workers’ struggle. The argument follows that the economic
circumstances are ripe for a development in struggle, but the historical
circumstances compel radicals to facilitate the ignition of that struggle from
without. The guiding principle of an abstract strike is such that an action
might ‘wake up’ critical sections of the working class and motivate them to
carry the struggle forward. The existing historical hinge that connects workers
with necessitated workplace organization isn’t being tightened- the door is
being slammed in the face of workers. Doing this is to ignore the reality that
the workplace is the fulcrum of struggle- and to impatiently bypass the door
and walk bloody-nosed into a wall.
It’s timely to
report that Occupy Oakland won’t be shutting down the ports this May Day, but
rather the ILWU will be. A trade union with a history of radical protest, they
have within their union coordinated and planned for a mass union walk out in
honor of May Day. This is the kind of worker self-activity that should be
supported and solidarity actions organized around.
In the current
political climate fight back is a certainty, though the success of struggle
certainly isn’t. The economic brew of wars, austerity, and the gap between rich
and poor compel working people to resist. The form that resistance will take
frankly has little to do with Occupy or the sincere left in general, outside of
our ability to lay the ground work, agitate, and relate to struggles when and
where they develop. The notion that radicals can call for a General Strike by
bypassing all that goes into building for a it is tantamount to demanding that
history bends to our will. History may come our way, but it will have little to
do with our imperative. The role of revolutionaries is to actively work to
raise consciousness while simultaneously bolstering actions called by workers
waging a fight back.
The majority of
the workforce in the United States is unorganized. Even so it is a certainty
that spontaneous struggle will develop out of this circumstance. It is true
that workers will build new and imaginative methods of organizing that may or
may not develop along lines of previous trade union struggles, but will
certainly be shaped by the existing unorganized character of the American
working class. Calling these methods into existence from outside the workplace or
self-activity of workers however, is like invoking a gathering storm to rain.
It either will, or it won’t. Standing on the dry dirt of the American political
economy, we are certainly in favor of rain, but even if we were not, rain would
be just as likely.
Strikes are to
an economic crisis what lightning is to a storm. In a storm you can expect
lightning, but there is no point in predicting where it will strike. The best
you can do is set up lighting rods in anticipation of lightning. Likewise, in a
broken economy it makes most sense to orient around ‘lightning rods’ in workplace
struggles that can channel militancy to broader layers of the working class. Workplaces
that are already organized are the most advantageous positions to start from
since the principle methods of organization already exist and the workers
already have a modicum of protection.
This raises the
issue of a Wildcat strike. Ultra lefts argue that open participation in a
“General Strike” may inspire Wildcat strikes within workplaces. Again let us
say that the self-activity of the working class is an inevitability in an
economy lashed by wars and austerity, but that calling for a Wildcat strike
from without the workplace is just as foolish and misleading as the calls for
General Strikes in the first place. Hypothetically, a successful Wildcat strike
puts workers in a position where they will have to move toward unionization
immediately to defend themselves against the boss’s retaliation and retain what
they have earned in struggle. This instance further raises the question of
striking workers entering existing unions, which ultra lefts criticize for
their bureaucratic conservatism, or otherwise forming unions of their own.
Neither of these are altogether undesirable outcomes. In the abstract sense,
the left should support all kinds of workers’ organization and activity, but
nothing guarantees these freedoms from the existing contradictions that plague
the union movement today.
To further this
point, calling for a strike from outside of the workplace establishes the
immediate obstacle of having called a strike and bypassed any
functional apparatus to bring workers out of the workplace and into the
strike. Propagandistic methods can be applied, but propaganda under these
conditions functions practically as little more than an invitation and is open
to a myriad of subjective interpretations. Propaganda for a strike is like trying
to control the weather. I can’t be done. You might as well invite lighting to
strike at an exact time and place.[6]
The failure of propaganda in this circumstance may also result in moralist
injunctions against those workers who do not come out because of a perceived
inherent conservatism. Theories that breed hostility toward the last vestiges
of the existing unions in this country make no attempts to reach out to the
tens of thousands of sympathetic workers within them. This abstention
characteristically leads to adventurous political acts based on a flat
interpretation of the role unions play.
This perhaps is the
most calamitous of all likely outcomes to calls for strikes in the abstract.
These calls do not function in a vacuum but lay over the existing political
terrain in our society, subject to all of its prejudices, anxieties and yes
also the persistent hope for a better future. These attributes are not mutually
exclusive. A worker invited to participate in an abstract strike is very likely
to see this as a motive contrary to their betterment, if they perceive their
betterment and their position at work as one in the same. Let us say that we
believe that a future under capitalism is no future at all, and that all
workers are at their best when they act according to their collective rather
than individual interests. But let us also say, that activists unwilling to
understand or engage with individually based motives, play a detrimental role
in our movement.
Rather what
should be argued for is the advancement of the movement. What activity will
pull large numbers of people to it? Understanding the consciousness of the
terrain is just as important as acting upon it. Activating passive layers of
support comes most readily by meeting those people where they are at- regarding
the struggles in every day life, not from showing off adventurous tactics
without regard to effective strategy. We should stand firmly against the
ultra-left currents and instead strategize over ways to win masses of workers
organized and unorganized to the cause of our movement. Workers need to see
themselves as apart of the movement not a part from it.
At all odds we
should avoid a circumstance that cultivates a perspective that pits radicals
against workers. Instead we should say that workers are radicals and radicals
are workers. Rather than the ultra left perspective that in practice would see
the working class follow the lead of the radicals by attending their General Strike and accommodating their activities, we as revolutionaries
should take the lead from existing class struggles and help push them to
victory. We want to prove again and again that workers can fight back and get
something. We don’t want to propagate the abstract idea of a strike, but show
in concrete practice that workers can organize, that workers can win, and that revolutionaries
can contribute to the process. Let all the flowers bloom. Some will thrive;
others will wilt and cast their seeds to the wind. Workers in struggle are the
real radicals; the lead we take should be from them.
A General Strike,
in the abstract, will be neither a strike, nor will it be general. Calling an
abstract strike a General Strike is as dishonest and misleading as attempting
to lead the workers struggle without engaging with the existing institutions of
that struggle. Workers self-activity is a certainty just as calling for it is a
redundancy. Struggles within the workplace are bound to rise in the wake of
Occupy and it is on these struggles that our movement should pivot.
The mantra of
the revolutionary today ought be- “we are not what we want to be, but we want
to become it together,” bringing all the disparate elements of the workers’
struggle into a crescendos tide against Capitalism. The mantra of the
Ultra-Left remains- “we are already what we want to be, and we want you to join
us.” As Lenin said, "It is far more difficult--and far more useful to be a
revolutionary when the conditions for direct, open, really mass and really
revolutionary struggle do not yet exist." Our collective work in Occupy
has made a tremendous step toward open struggle, but revolutionary struggle
does not yet exist in the United States. Let us engage ourselves in the more
useful –and difficult task of joining with existing struggle and building from
it the revolutionary tide.
[1] This will not be a repeat of
the Chris Hedge’s “article.” Because seriously, fuck that guy.
[2] Literally translated to “The
Enraged Ones.”
[3] Blanquism distinguishes itself from other socialist currents of the day in
numerous ways. Contrary to Karl Marx, Blanqui did not believe in the
preponderant role of the working class, nor in popular movements: he thought,
on the contrary, that the revolution should be carried out by a small group,
who would establish a temporary dictatorship by force. This period of transitional
tyranny would permit the implementation of a new order, after which power would
be handed to the people. In another respect, Blanqui was more concerned with
the revolutionary process itself than with the future society that would result
from it.
[4] In Marxist philosophy,
Leninism is the political theory for the democratic organization of a
revolutionary vanguard party, and the achievement of a direct-democracy
dictatorship of the proletariat, as political prelude to the establishment of
socialism. Championing
democratic centralization and political education the vanguard party along with
the militant layers of the working class lead revolutionary activity.
[5] Burn.
