Данная критика важна в свете the current situation in the left movement in Russia, and deserves more political debate. Leftists are faced with a particular social situation in Russia. It is characterized by social instability, market reforms and atomization of society with all its consequences. In this situation leftist movement, which, firstly, is an authoritarian, secondly, in favor of a command economy or state capitalism, and, finally, is nationalist and xenophobic. Here's why it is necessary to define the attitude of anarchists to the situation and show what anarchists differ from these authoritarian leftists.
Type your cut contents here. Certain trends in the Russian left and anarchist movement makes this criticism even more urgent and necessary. First, in the current social situation, we can see that the "Left" and "opposition" are both right, going toward authoritarianism, borrowing conservative, totalitarian, corporate, national-socialist ideas and images. We also see that the right-left stolen the symbolism and some (convenient them) left ideas. Different people and groups are trying to synthesize the left and right views. From this symbiosis in the past five years has developed a strong, new During that tries to pass himself off as a left, at least to attract those who are sympathetic to the left. At the same time to attract the opposite public, it depicts a right. Secondly, the increased number of people who consider themselves anarchists, but at the same time - and part of a broad yuolee "obschelevogo" movement. They speak the language of symbols and reject intellectualism, and therefore do not understand the intricacies of policy. It is amorphous, pseudo-"autonomous" layer is often forms a mass of contradictory, constantly trying to create his own synthesis of diverse anarchist, radical left and the pseudo-left wing ideas. In such a synthesis of anarchism and is altered in a distorted form, the dramatic differences between anarchism (libertarian communism) on the one hand, and leftism and authoritarianism, on the other, become blurred to such an extent that the basic concepts of anarchism lost in the thick of the images and symbolism of the "anti-pop" (kontrkulturschiny) and krutizma. The third new right of permanent use of anarchist and libertarian texts, language and symbols of the purposefully trying to gain a foothold at our expense. Comes to the fact that the editor of a purely fascist magazine "Elements" Alexander Dugin makes reports about anarchism, "as synthesized" propagandists like Tarasova called scavengers like Tsvetkov, former editor of the Nazi "pineapple", and AD Kostenko, a nationalist and a supporter of the Party, the anarchists, but people more anarchic, than those who do not want to cooperate with the Nazis and totalitarist.
In this situation, the concept of anarchism is transformed by his enemies, which act as a Trojan horse, into something quite nebulous. Finally, because of the paucity of these anarchists and clean (neleninskih) Marxists supporters of workers' councils, or even normal left many potential activists to turn to the larger (on the left's standards) organizations or their members for information or cooperation, involving them in their actions. It is not even on their quest to achieve "critical mass" - they hungry tide "fresh blood", the arrival of new people with Ktorov they could lay the groundwork for a new alternative scene. As a result, there is a cooperation between people with different political views (or sometimes without a clear political opinions), which merged in the main simply a denial of market and bourgeois culture. During why countercultural Wednesday has not yet become a hotbed of libertarian and anarchist action, and she easily generates the Nazis that now happening. because many of our friends want to create an anarchist counterculture as a form of elitism underclass, and try to get rid of from such elements. If they do not, it will turn into multipallets new right "synthesized" radicalism, rather than in the embryo elite radicalism as they would like.
anarchists and leftists - there is a difference!
clear that the need to explain the difference between anarchists and RNE. The difference is quite obvious. Barkashovtsy - "Tsivilev" and because of their style can not be misleading. Difficult for many to feel the difference between anarchism and other leftist and understand why they can not support them or join with them in the block. Why Che Guevara deserves posthumous bullet in the head, not pop symbolic of idolatry? Why, when we think about North Korea, we do not remember the last bulwark against the market, but the iron fist and iron bars? Why are we still critical of the Zapatistas, Chechen government and the Afghan National Congress, to all anti-imperialist left, but the national and state movements? Why do we do would like to give Trotsky ice pick? Why do we wipe their asses "Bumbarash" and want to send a pineapple "pineapple"? To answer these questions, we must see what they offer and see how their strategy destroys everything that we wanted to build.
First of all, anarchy means direct participation, direct decision-making. We do not want no state, no bosses, no Revolutionary Committee of us. We want people to be themselves cope with its aspects of social life. People can do it themselves, in small groups or alone, in communities or collectives. To achieve this freedom, we must believe that man, freed from the habit, encouraged by the system can actually operate by itself. (In fact, we still do everything, but mediation experts who are hired exploiters, but is run by the system. When anarchy experts themselves freely to share their knowledge instead of selling them at the best price). Therefore, it is obvious that we can not support political forces that would replace the current system his own authority.
clear that it is impossible to maintain the Communist Party, but against other communist for many somehow think differently. Part of series believe that we have with them the general problem - the elimination of capitalism. Supporters of the "common task" (destruction rather than construction of new) zybyvayut ask: what are want to "communists"? What they want to replace the existing system? Some believe that this can be thought then, as long as "everything goes according to plan." In the past, Many thought so, and that mistake cost them their lives.
Actually podavlyuyuschee bolschinstvo Left psevdolevyh / new-right groups in Russia are not discussed such "minor" issues such as principles of social organization. They would only confuse people, and many would not have joined them or just Be fled away. All this is very bad, because the leaders certainly know what they want, and on occasion will offer their own variants. Weight rebels, left without a program or plan action, simply follow them, even if before she had doubts. When these groups are talking about the welfare of people, all this cheap populism. Such was the language of Lenin, Hitler, Peron, Lukashenko, the language of hundreds of the "fathers of peoples in history who have managed to play in populism, rebellion and revolution. They rolled in the wake of rejection, until we came to power. And then they got rid of the opposition, including from the one that decides the general problem "with them. What treachery!
should be seen as political activists belong to the people. Elitism - that is what leads to fascism, revolutionary avngard can turn into a totalitarian dictators. Elitarist believes that society consists of a heap of morons who are not able to govern themselves. When he wants to pose as a humanist, He argues that people do not want to impose on ourselves such a burden. Perhaps now it is, but this is a temporary condition, due to the fact that the system deprives people of the opportunity to govern themselves and the people are not used to. Human nature is not mortgaged.
Anarchists seek to change this situation, want to encourage people to enable them to regain control over their own lives. Statesmen and "leaders" themselves want to control everything and everyone, they do not care participate in the people or not. In fact, they probably do not want people to participate in solving the fate of society, they fear the involvement of "grassroots".
In tick-called "left" movement in Russia can be found such elitaristov, often hiding under the guise of populism. There are also subconscious elitaristy. Usually it is "ordinary" revolutionaries who today have no clear position on this issue, or even seem to be against elitaristov, but at the crucial moment will be on their side. There are many people in the counterculture, as it serves as a hotbed of covert, subliminal elitism. The common thread that runs through it - it hatred of the existing culture, consumer, entertainment or household. I can understand this hatred. But elitarist and sends it to the ordinary people, that is, the "masses", perceiving themselves as opposed to them "the vanguard".
Recently we've seen this with the example of so-called radical Artists in Moscow, tusuyuschihsya around the journal "Radek". They created a "control commission" that claim is to determine state policy. They and thoughts do not admit that people are free to run their lives. They perceive themselves as experts and lawmakers (which, taking into account their total illiteracy in the economy in general is ridiculously!). The arrogance of these people is obvious. In the midst of miners' strike, ignoring all the problems of Russian society, they could not think of nothing better than to demand personal his salary in 1200 dollars per month, drug legalization and visa-free travel. (In principle, I do not have anything against these claims, but I do not think that drugs should be given priority at the moment when millions of workers have nothing to eat. Moreover, the consumption of heavy drugs - a result of social exclusion. Not have been better to make life a wonderful carnival, which involves all, rather than resign ourselves on self-destruction and materialism?).
we have in common with those who favor a broad popular participation in public life, for example, with supporters of the workers Councils. But we have little in common with the "revolutionary vanguard", and there is nothing to do with political parties.
We differ from the "leftists" on many important Settlements. Another one of them - it is internationalism. We are critical of the national liberation movements and illusions policy of anti-imperialism. Many "Leftists" describe Russia as a colony of foreign capital, practically claiming that it is sufficient to expel foreigners to solve all problems. Immediately comes to mind ads Bryntsalov, which calls for buying only Russian medicine so that the money stayed in Russia, precisely so he could buy more gold pens, and his wife - more leather pants. And we are against any use. If Russia was not included in the global economy, still operation would be preserved (the fact that the "Soviet" power share of workers in the gross domestic product was even when "public funds" 20%, while in the U.S. - 60%). This anti-imperialist rhetoric is more like a "Soviet" xenophobic propaganda. Anarchists, in contrast, advocated cooperation people, regardless of place of birth or residence.
Down with capitalism and wage labor!
begin with reservations: various anarchists have different ideas about what to look for the economy and material life of the anarchist society. But, basically, all agree that the means of production should be controlled by corporations, and that all should have equal opportunities to manage their own affairs. So speaking about the differences of views anarchists and communists, "I stated the position of the majority of anarchists.
State capitalism
Many of the so-called "communist" serve in fact for one or another form of state capitalism. With this model, the surplus value is assigned to the state and its workers produce by slave labor. Determining the rate of economic life, the state system to get as much surplus value, despite such harmful consequences for society and the planet as urbanization, depletion of resources, etc.
What proihodit in fact, under central planning economy? First, a layer of bureaucracy that's just, being engaged in the distribution of wealth, can ensure the allocation of money in their own interests and privileges for themselves. (The current crisis in the Russian economy has arisen partly due to the fact that the ruling circles are used to distribute benefits of their own will, without any accountability.) Second, developing a command economy, is not always satisfying the needs of consumers. Arose funny situations: people to produce food, which are then transported to other regions, and producers had to go there to buy them and bring them back. Such absurdity is possible only where the workers themselves have no rights, and speaks only solves the omnipotent state. Also Workers are split on ierhicheskie and corporate groups and their position at work prevent them from controlling the content of the production process. Finally, the law prohibits all private and cooperative initiatives that could threaten government control. Most workers live in poverty, they have no opportunity to accumulate money or to get them, they can not establish their own cooperatives to build a place to live or do anything else, is not permitted by the state.
Such totalitarianism with its Cheka, which should control the rebels or "petty" elements such as small-scale cooperatives, has nothing to do with anarchism. Instead, we favor the less automated society in which resources means of production and public goods would be shared and accessible to all those who use them (when resources are shared, you can reduce the consumption of power and resources to a minimum, and then not have to spend all their time to make things that then have to buy a ticket). People could protect the environment and the Earth, to organize the work, allowing all to participate in decision-making, it is easy to arrange things so that everyone had more free time to participate in public life and develop their abilities and interests. while the economy is controlled by the ruling class, priority will be not meeting the needs of mankind, and material accumulation. From the perspective of rulers, the people - this is only part large machinery. Only those who do not consider myself a part, can live and behave like humans.
Loan clear position!
We need the positive presentation about the future, which would show how people can communicate, organize and manage the production company. Anarchists have always offered an alternative patterns of society, most often they are based on the federation of communes and individuals. The only form of representation they are delegates, be revoked any time. To open such a possibility on a large scale, it is necessary, of course, vsergnut existing system.
Russian leftist movement is full of "Oppositionists" who are protesting against an evil thing: globalization, capitalism, fascism, militarism ... All this, of course, fine, but the fact is that being against anything is not enough to bring people together for positive change in society. If only to unite under the banner of protest, people at risk to get into one company with those whose politics he does not understand and do not share. sometimes unscrupulous activists and organizers even conceal their this position to attract to their group as much as possible for people to gain political capital and make yourself advertising. But this constructive action rarely results from such unions.
Recently, in Russia we see a monstrous abuse of political terms and ideas from any idiots, enjoy, on the contrary, very smart individuals who know how to deceive people. The most frequently vsrechayuschiysya phenomenon - an amalgam of authoritarian and anti-authoritarian ideas, which contradict each other, but somehow processed and combined. Perhaps worst of all would be if the elements fascist ideas to infiltrate the society, and nestle in political theory. There are many people willing to carry out synthesis of left and radical right. Most of the Left rejects such a synthesis, but sometimes they themselves, without understanding the subtleties, borrow some of the new right-wing or totalitarian ideas.
To understand why we need a clear positive program and why we must abandon the idea of \u200b\u200b"fusion", just look at history. Such attempts to combine right and left radicalism has been in the past. The most famous example - the fascism of Mussolini in Italy.
Many people consider the defining criteria for fascism racial hatred and totalitarianism. But racial hatred - not a mandatory feature of fascism. Fascist movements have always tried to fuse the right and left ideas. From this synthesis was to receive a radical "third way". An important role for the Nazis played "anti-bourgeois" - the same mindset, which is now attracts many people in Russia. The Nazis promised to workers and social safeguards to ensure life, put principle above, the ideal consumption of material benefits. They performed against a class society. This similarity in the negation of bourgeois society and would become the basis for the involvement of the left in general with Nazi coalition. (Leader of contemporary Italian neo-fascists Pinot Routh, a former organizer of the terrorist attacks on the Left, Tode declares its "Anti-capitalism" and offers newly communists, socialists and "green" to create a political bloc.) But while the Nazis have never renounced the idea of \u200b\u200bprivate property and, most importantly, have always rejected humanism and quite different than the left, refers to freedom. Anti-bourgeois politics can not of itself by itself provide the basis for a common political language. When people type Tarasova talk about the possibility of cooperation with limonovtsa "because those" anti-bourgeois ", they are simply apologists for fascism.
socio-economic crisis always sposobstvut rise of fascism, especially the drop in the growth of the average rights. Post-Soviet Russia has become a training ground for fascism, primarily due to socio-economic changes and responses to them. Rapid social change arouse people's sense of alienation from society. The Nazis also promised to revive the lost stability, restore order, return to man his place in society. They use a sense of nostalgia, which in today's Russia may join "communist" left with the Nazis and the New Right. Fascists say and the welfare of the people - another common program item to the totalitarian "communist." Anarchists also reject the theory of the strong state, which should protect the people. Strong states want the fascists and totalitarian "communist", but not us. In this sense kommunyagi and fascists are on the same side of the political barricades, which in this case shares are not right and left, and authoritarians, and supporters of freedom.
Populism and the idea of \u200b\u200brebirth of the nation have special advantages. Their Nebula and nepredelennost able to attract as traditionalists, conservatives and the radical "Renovationists. Plays an important role the notion of "nation". That it stands in the heart of their ideology, however much they talked about the synthesis of left, right, or any other ideas were. All post-Soviet national-patriotic tendencies, too, push this problem - to return to the people, "former glory". The idea of \u200b\u200bthe nation is not necessarily a racial nature, like Hitler. Mussolini, for example, asserted that the nation could include people living in different regions, belonging to different nations and speaking different languages. Such same theory was at the NBP (until recently split).
Fascists often spoke of the "proletarian brotherhood." For example, Mussolini declared that the Turkish and Arab prletarii - His brothers. Many of the new right, too, recognize the problems of other countries, but offer the nationalist solution. Fascist theorist Julius Evola was even big fan of the national liberation movements in the Third World, precisely because it wanted to separate existence of all nations. The U.S. has the right, opposed to U.S. economic imperialism and globalization as harmful to the working class. Anarchists, in contrast, are reluctant to admit ideas nation and national division, and they understand the nation as a product of the state. The idea of \u200b\u200bnational movements is always a tool of the new political power.
important to understand that Germans tend to borrow ideas from the left and right theories. They have adopted leftist ideas, which could coincide with their anti-bourgeois propaganda and preaching material prosperity. At the same time, they throw all the more radical socialist or anarchist ideas. Many Left have been deceived by the Nazis because they focus on general negative and the program does not take a clear anti-totalitarian position. One such people had a syndicalist Georges Sorel, who initially sympathized with Mussolini, and then criticized him because he has become less radical, more pragmatic corporatism, and gave the rich. Sorel was not a racist, and probably, if he understood the end, what is fascism, he would not have had with him. But unfortunately, he was drowned in unscrupulous political tactics. Sorrel was elitaristom intellectuals and underestimated the intelligence of the masses. His main contribution to the strategy Mussolini was the idea that the working masses can perceive the revolutionary consciousness only through myths. This idea is in sharp contrast to the anarchic, Socialist and libertarian-egalitarian-communist spirit of mutual education of people as there are enough reasonable to rationally solve their problems. Anarchists accept the mythology as an instrument of social control by the ruling elites. By the time World War Sorrel concluded that such a myth, able to mobilize people, nationalism can be, so he helped develop fascism.
Many of the Left and New Right in Russia also use the myths to attract people. One of those who openly praises zhtu strategy - a historical revisionist and apologist for the right Tarasov. Several times he penned a legend, and in general are actively engaged in mythmaking. People like AD Kostenko, P. Bylevskogo and A. Tsvetkov also widely use this tool. They are easy to deceive those who know nothing, and convince others that this is just a game and the Orange provocation. "
Radical "communist" press sometimes looks like a set of myths. The most disgusting vpechptlenie leaves "Bumbarash", where you can discover the myths about Mao, Stalin, "Seder lyuminiso" Pol Pot, with a "minor details" are omitted, all data on the repression, murder, all descriptions of what happened to the rebels pr such regimes. All this is true stuff. The same applies to no small number of autonomous psevdoanarhicheskih magazines, where reklamiretsya any first available guerilla. If more acceptable to assume that the radical left magazine could write about Che Guevara or the RAF, the Kim Il Sung and the Sendero lyuminoso "so far from anarchism that articles about them cause really serious questions. I'm worried about punk antiintelliktualizm because it is easy to see how the lack of information is used elites in order to introduce people to the head myths.
But to return to Italian fascism. Benito Mussolini was the first member of the Italian Socialist Party and tried to create a left wing bloc. He became editor of "Avanti!". He wandered around all sorts of radical artists and writers. It reminds me of the situation with "pineapple." Among these writers were celebrities such as Gabriele D'Annunzio, Enrico Corradino (author of the thesis of the "proletarian nations") and Giovanni Papini (While the most popular writer of the country). All of them entertained a strong hostility to bourgeois society. They gave the Nazis Youth avant-garde style, which allowed them to look new and interesting. Papini was an extreme elitaristom and loved not only myths, but also deliberately distorted. He talked a lot about international fraternity just because I wanted to give the movement moral facade. Papini deliberately tried to deceive and attract socialists feel uncomfortable because with a fascist nationalism. Corradino hated bourgeois state and was an original supporter of krutizma. He wanted to create an image of a hero for the masses (As the current "Limonov's party" or Kostenko). But even worse was D'Annunzio and Marinetti. The latter, a famous artist and futrist was most popular in the second place after Mussolini. He considered himself ultraradikalom. His idea of \u200b\u200bwar as the only way of healing the world has become very popular in the revolutionary counterculture and avant-garde.
Then Mussolini pushed the idea of \u200b\u200b"fashi de kombattimento - armed gangs. Their program connects different elements - from the requirements material well-being to sexual freedom, all godilos to attract young people, which he regarded as the vanguard of the revolution. The Nazis wanted to these "guerrillas" subject to strict discipline. Left-wing slogans of social well-being floated right-wing authoritarianism. After the victory of the revolution to keep its results should have been a strong state.
D'Annutsio as a cult figure was somewhat similar to Limonov (he also fought in Yugoslavia, but where successfully). He developed the idea of \u200b\u200bthe role of symbols. The current youth policy this symbolism is important.
In short, the history of Italian Fascism has much in common with its current Russian counterpart. As with the earlier German fascists. They borrowed a lot of German Romanticism and natsionalistichekogo Traffic felkishe "which deified nature, and all national. They preached the idea of \u200b\u200belite fighting forces of genius and indolence of the masses. Vanguard artists, who considered himself a force fighting against bourgeois society, reinforce this position. The declared concern for the welfare of the people was purely paternalistic : in the heart of these avant-garde hated masses, considering them as carriers of bourgeois culture.
most direct connection exists between the ideology NBP (before the split) and the views of J. Evola - a favorite fascist Alexander Dugin. Evola was born in 1898, became the youngest artist just in time peak of Italian Fascism. He became a futurist and Dadaist. Evola adored esoteric, was a Gentile and enjoying spirituality. K materialistic decadent "he experienced an acute hatred. After World War II, when fascism had become already a dirty word, he managed to find a common point with the left and denounced the Americanization of Europe. Evola argued against the multinationals, but argued from the perspective of nationalism. Same easy to detect in the Russian left movement.
Like all avant-garde, Evola put forward the idea of \u200b\u200b"political soldier" - the youth vanguard in the struggle against "capitalist decadence". This idea is like both right and left. But anarchists refer to it critically. On the one hand, the strategy seems logical: the youth is angry and wants to change. But this strategy has significant drawbacks. First of all, age does not necessarily define politichekuyu orientation, to think differently - the same nonsense as the idea of \u200b\u200bthe nation. New generation does not necessarily happen more radical than the old one. Divide people so badly, but in terms of manipulating their "leaders" - very convenient. Young people can look at myself as an avant-garde just because she's young. But we, the anarchists do not want people to feel avant-garde. We want them to understand exactly what to do. We do not want people to be just the soldiers in the wars of unscrupulous "leaders." We strive people to understand the ideas, trying to somehow make them, and became a catalyst for the revolution. We do not intend to play in symbolism, myth-making, etc. We want to stimulate the brains of people. We prefer constructive socialism cheap negativism. Let people see themselves as part of their society as a whole, not as belonging to the categories of "student", "punk", "worker" etc.
in the left movement is a set of unscrupulous leaders, who simply need "Mass". In fact they do not respect the people whom they recruit. Often it is difficult to understand because they lick the ass of youth and kontrkulturschikam. But Despite this anal love, subcultural youth for them - are just pawns in a political game. Their relationship becomes clear when you realize that they consciously misinform people hide their youth policy, or when you hear their claim that the young need only "bread and circuses."
Frankly, In the end we prefer that people who generally can not understand politics, stepped aside. It's better than trying to synthesize anarchism and Leninism. We already spend too much time correcting all but the delusions that cause us psevdolevye and new rules. We believe that we have blatantly stolen positive image of freedom to manipulate people. Take the famous incident at the concert, "Russian Breakthrough" several years ago. It appeared Lemons and Dugin. The first shouted: "Glory to Russia!" (Nationalist slogan), "We are the great white nation in Europe" (a racist and imperialist slogan), "With us God "(religious slogan)," With us, Sasha Barkashov (Fascist slogan), "With us, Victor Anpilov" ("communist slogan), and finally," Anarchy - order's mother! ". Punks were in ecstasy. But, of course, it's not the same. In the middle of a concert, took the floor Dugin. He said: "There is time to break down and a time to build!" Now is the time to destroy. ". Dugin has met a very strong reaction of protest from punks who shouted: "Fascism - by ...". This absurd situation is very revealing. On the one hand, Dugin - a fascist, and his cry was typical of the fascist. But it was not purely a fascist slogan. Lemons are also a fascist. And it was he who proclaimed fascist specific slogans. But he applauded. Probably, the punks perceive Limonov as countercultural figure, and Dugin - as "of civilized" intellectual. You can see that the most successful arms of the New Right - it's aesthetics and avant-garde fashion. In reality, Limonov, Dugin, and not so different, they just play different roles. It Dugin is the "brain", but he needs people like Limonov and flowering, to create a new style.
After the Nazis to fool people, they will pat them on the back, suck up to them, telling them that they - the most revolutionary elements. Then we come and tell them the truth. We understand that the tactics of the Nazis easier to recruit people, but we hope that the eternal beauty of our goals to win. True social revolution can be made only on ethical grounds.
In this situation, the concept of anarchism is transformed by his enemies, which act as a Trojan horse, into something quite nebulous. Finally, because of the paucity of these anarchists and clean (neleninskih) Marxists supporters of workers' councils, or even normal left many potential activists to turn to the larger (on the left's standards) organizations or their members for information or cooperation, involving them in their actions. It is not even on their quest to achieve "critical mass" - they hungry tide "fresh blood", the arrival of new people with Ktorov they could lay the groundwork for a new alternative scene. As a result, there is a cooperation between people with different political views (or sometimes without a clear political opinions), which merged in the main simply a denial of market and bourgeois culture. During why countercultural Wednesday has not yet become a hotbed of libertarian and anarchist action, and she easily generates the Nazis that now happening. because many of our friends want to create an anarchist counterculture as a form of elitism underclass, and try to get rid of from such elements. If they do not, it will turn into multipallets new right "synthesized" radicalism, rather than in the embryo elite radicalism as they would like.
anarchists and leftists - there is a difference!
clear that the need to explain the difference between anarchists and RNE. The difference is quite obvious. Barkashovtsy - "Tsivilev" and because of their style can not be misleading. Difficult for many to feel the difference between anarchism and other leftist and understand why they can not support them or join with them in the block. Why Che Guevara deserves posthumous bullet in the head, not pop symbolic of idolatry? Why, when we think about North Korea, we do not remember the last bulwark against the market, but the iron fist and iron bars? Why are we still critical of the Zapatistas, Chechen government and the Afghan National Congress, to all anti-imperialist left, but the national and state movements? Why do we do would like to give Trotsky ice pick? Why do we wipe their asses "Bumbarash" and want to send a pineapple "pineapple"? To answer these questions, we must see what they offer and see how their strategy destroys everything that we wanted to build.
First of all, anarchy means direct participation, direct decision-making. We do not want no state, no bosses, no Revolutionary Committee of us. We want people to be themselves cope with its aspects of social life. People can do it themselves, in small groups or alone, in communities or collectives. To achieve this freedom, we must believe that man, freed from the habit, encouraged by the system can actually operate by itself. (In fact, we still do everything, but mediation experts who are hired exploiters, but is run by the system. When anarchy experts themselves freely to share their knowledge instead of selling them at the best price). Therefore, it is obvious that we can not support political forces that would replace the current system his own authority.
clear that it is impossible to maintain the Communist Party, but against other communist for many somehow think differently. Part of series believe that we have with them the general problem - the elimination of capitalism. Supporters of the "common task" (destruction rather than construction of new) zybyvayut ask: what are want to "communists"? What they want to replace the existing system? Some believe that this can be thought then, as long as "everything goes according to plan." In the past, Many thought so, and that mistake cost them their lives.
Actually podavlyuyuschee bolschinstvo Left psevdolevyh / new-right groups in Russia are not discussed such "minor" issues such as principles of social organization. They would only confuse people, and many would not have joined them or just Be fled away. All this is very bad, because the leaders certainly know what they want, and on occasion will offer their own variants. Weight rebels, left without a program or plan action, simply follow them, even if before she had doubts. When these groups are talking about the welfare of people, all this cheap populism. Such was the language of Lenin, Hitler, Peron, Lukashenko, the language of hundreds of the "fathers of peoples in history who have managed to play in populism, rebellion and revolution. They rolled in the wake of rejection, until we came to power. And then they got rid of the opposition, including from the one that decides the general problem "with them. What treachery!
should be seen as political activists belong to the people. Elitism - that is what leads to fascism, revolutionary avngard can turn into a totalitarian dictators. Elitarist believes that society consists of a heap of morons who are not able to govern themselves. When he wants to pose as a humanist, He argues that people do not want to impose on ourselves such a burden. Perhaps now it is, but this is a temporary condition, due to the fact that the system deprives people of the opportunity to govern themselves and the people are not used to. Human nature is not mortgaged.
Anarchists seek to change this situation, want to encourage people to enable them to regain control over their own lives. Statesmen and "leaders" themselves want to control everything and everyone, they do not care participate in the people or not. In fact, they probably do not want people to participate in solving the fate of society, they fear the involvement of "grassroots".
In tick-called "left" movement in Russia can be found such elitaristov, often hiding under the guise of populism. There are also subconscious elitaristy. Usually it is "ordinary" revolutionaries who today have no clear position on this issue, or even seem to be against elitaristov, but at the crucial moment will be on their side. There are many people in the counterculture, as it serves as a hotbed of covert, subliminal elitism. The common thread that runs through it - it hatred of the existing culture, consumer, entertainment or household. I can understand this hatred. But elitarist and sends it to the ordinary people, that is, the "masses", perceiving themselves as opposed to them "the vanguard".
Recently we've seen this with the example of so-called radical Artists in Moscow, tusuyuschihsya around the journal "Radek". They created a "control commission" that claim is to determine state policy. They and thoughts do not admit that people are free to run their lives. They perceive themselves as experts and lawmakers (which, taking into account their total illiteracy in the economy in general is ridiculously!). The arrogance of these people is obvious. In the midst of miners' strike, ignoring all the problems of Russian society, they could not think of nothing better than to demand personal his salary in 1200 dollars per month, drug legalization and visa-free travel. (In principle, I do not have anything against these claims, but I do not think that drugs should be given priority at the moment when millions of workers have nothing to eat. Moreover, the consumption of heavy drugs - a result of social exclusion. Not have been better to make life a wonderful carnival, which involves all, rather than resign ourselves on self-destruction and materialism?).
we have in common with those who favor a broad popular participation in public life, for example, with supporters of the workers Councils. But we have little in common with the "revolutionary vanguard", and there is nothing to do with political parties.
We differ from the "leftists" on many important Settlements. Another one of them - it is internationalism. We are critical of the national liberation movements and illusions policy of anti-imperialism. Many "Leftists" describe Russia as a colony of foreign capital, practically claiming that it is sufficient to expel foreigners to solve all problems. Immediately comes to mind ads Bryntsalov, which calls for buying only Russian medicine so that the money stayed in Russia, precisely so he could buy more gold pens, and his wife - more leather pants. And we are against any use. If Russia was not included in the global economy, still operation would be preserved (the fact that the "Soviet" power share of workers in the gross domestic product was even when "public funds" 20%, while in the U.S. - 60%). This anti-imperialist rhetoric is more like a "Soviet" xenophobic propaganda. Anarchists, in contrast, advocated cooperation people, regardless of place of birth or residence.
Down with capitalism and wage labor!
begin with reservations: various anarchists have different ideas about what to look for the economy and material life of the anarchist society. But, basically, all agree that the means of production should be controlled by corporations, and that all should have equal opportunities to manage their own affairs. So speaking about the differences of views anarchists and communists, "I stated the position of the majority of anarchists.
State capitalism
Many of the so-called "communist" serve in fact for one or another form of state capitalism. With this model, the surplus value is assigned to the state and its workers produce by slave labor. Determining the rate of economic life, the state system to get as much surplus value, despite such harmful consequences for society and the planet as urbanization, depletion of resources, etc.
What proihodit in fact, under central planning economy? First, a layer of bureaucracy that's just, being engaged in the distribution of wealth, can ensure the allocation of money in their own interests and privileges for themselves. (The current crisis in the Russian economy has arisen partly due to the fact that the ruling circles are used to distribute benefits of their own will, without any accountability.) Second, developing a command economy, is not always satisfying the needs of consumers. Arose funny situations: people to produce food, which are then transported to other regions, and producers had to go there to buy them and bring them back. Such absurdity is possible only where the workers themselves have no rights, and speaks only solves the omnipotent state. Also Workers are split on ierhicheskie and corporate groups and their position at work prevent them from controlling the content of the production process. Finally, the law prohibits all private and cooperative initiatives that could threaten government control. Most workers live in poverty, they have no opportunity to accumulate money or to get them, they can not establish their own cooperatives to build a place to live or do anything else, is not permitted by the state.
Such totalitarianism with its Cheka, which should control the rebels or "petty" elements such as small-scale cooperatives, has nothing to do with anarchism. Instead, we favor the less automated society in which resources means of production and public goods would be shared and accessible to all those who use them (when resources are shared, you can reduce the consumption of power and resources to a minimum, and then not have to spend all their time to make things that then have to buy a ticket). People could protect the environment and the Earth, to organize the work, allowing all to participate in decision-making, it is easy to arrange things so that everyone had more free time to participate in public life and develop their abilities and interests. while the economy is controlled by the ruling class, priority will be not meeting the needs of mankind, and material accumulation. From the perspective of rulers, the people - this is only part large machinery. Only those who do not consider myself a part, can live and behave like humans.
Loan clear position!
We need the positive presentation about the future, which would show how people can communicate, organize and manage the production company. Anarchists have always offered an alternative patterns of society, most often they are based on the federation of communes and individuals. The only form of representation they are delegates, be revoked any time. To open such a possibility on a large scale, it is necessary, of course, vsergnut existing system.
Russian leftist movement is full of "Oppositionists" who are protesting against an evil thing: globalization, capitalism, fascism, militarism ... All this, of course, fine, but the fact is that being against anything is not enough to bring people together for positive change in society. If only to unite under the banner of protest, people at risk to get into one company with those whose politics he does not understand and do not share. sometimes unscrupulous activists and organizers even conceal their this position to attract to their group as much as possible for people to gain political capital and make yourself advertising. But this constructive action rarely results from such unions.
Recently, in Russia we see a monstrous abuse of political terms and ideas from any idiots, enjoy, on the contrary, very smart individuals who know how to deceive people. The most frequently vsrechayuschiysya phenomenon - an amalgam of authoritarian and anti-authoritarian ideas, which contradict each other, but somehow processed and combined. Perhaps worst of all would be if the elements fascist ideas to infiltrate the society, and nestle in political theory. There are many people willing to carry out synthesis of left and radical right. Most of the Left rejects such a synthesis, but sometimes they themselves, without understanding the subtleties, borrow some of the new right-wing or totalitarian ideas.
To understand why we need a clear positive program and why we must abandon the idea of \u200b\u200b"fusion", just look at history. Such attempts to combine right and left radicalism has been in the past. The most famous example - the fascism of Mussolini in Italy.
Many people consider the defining criteria for fascism racial hatred and totalitarianism. But racial hatred - not a mandatory feature of fascism. Fascist movements have always tried to fuse the right and left ideas. From this synthesis was to receive a radical "third way". An important role for the Nazis played "anti-bourgeois" - the same mindset, which is now attracts many people in Russia. The Nazis promised to workers and social safeguards to ensure life, put principle above, the ideal consumption of material benefits. They performed against a class society. This similarity in the negation of bourgeois society and would become the basis for the involvement of the left in general with Nazi coalition. (Leader of contemporary Italian neo-fascists Pinot Routh, a former organizer of the terrorist attacks on the Left, Tode declares its "Anti-capitalism" and offers newly communists, socialists and "green" to create a political bloc.) But while the Nazis have never renounced the idea of \u200b\u200bprivate property and, most importantly, have always rejected humanism and quite different than the left, refers to freedom. Anti-bourgeois politics can not of itself by itself provide the basis for a common political language. When people type Tarasova talk about the possibility of cooperation with limonovtsa "because those" anti-bourgeois ", they are simply apologists for fascism.
socio-economic crisis always sposobstvut rise of fascism, especially the drop in the growth of the average rights. Post-Soviet Russia has become a training ground for fascism, primarily due to socio-economic changes and responses to them. Rapid social change arouse people's sense of alienation from society. The Nazis also promised to revive the lost stability, restore order, return to man his place in society. They use a sense of nostalgia, which in today's Russia may join "communist" left with the Nazis and the New Right. Fascists say and the welfare of the people - another common program item to the totalitarian "communist." Anarchists also reject the theory of the strong state, which should protect the people. Strong states want the fascists and totalitarian "communist", but not us. In this sense kommunyagi and fascists are on the same side of the political barricades, which in this case shares are not right and left, and authoritarians, and supporters of freedom.
Populism and the idea of \u200b\u200brebirth of the nation have special advantages. Their Nebula and nepredelennost able to attract as traditionalists, conservatives and the radical "Renovationists. Plays an important role the notion of "nation". That it stands in the heart of their ideology, however much they talked about the synthesis of left, right, or any other ideas were. All post-Soviet national-patriotic tendencies, too, push this problem - to return to the people, "former glory". The idea of \u200b\u200bthe nation is not necessarily a racial nature, like Hitler. Mussolini, for example, asserted that the nation could include people living in different regions, belonging to different nations and speaking different languages. Such same theory was at the NBP (until recently split).
Fascists often spoke of the "proletarian brotherhood." For example, Mussolini declared that the Turkish and Arab prletarii - His brothers. Many of the new right, too, recognize the problems of other countries, but offer the nationalist solution. Fascist theorist Julius Evola was even big fan of the national liberation movements in the Third World, precisely because it wanted to separate existence of all nations. The U.S. has the right, opposed to U.S. economic imperialism and globalization as harmful to the working class. Anarchists, in contrast, are reluctant to admit ideas nation and national division, and they understand the nation as a product of the state. The idea of \u200b\u200bnational movements is always a tool of the new political power.
important to understand that Germans tend to borrow ideas from the left and right theories. They have adopted leftist ideas, which could coincide with their anti-bourgeois propaganda and preaching material prosperity. At the same time, they throw all the more radical socialist or anarchist ideas. Many Left have been deceived by the Nazis because they focus on general negative and the program does not take a clear anti-totalitarian position. One such people had a syndicalist Georges Sorel, who initially sympathized with Mussolini, and then criticized him because he has become less radical, more pragmatic corporatism, and gave the rich. Sorel was not a racist, and probably, if he understood the end, what is fascism, he would not have had with him. But unfortunately, he was drowned in unscrupulous political tactics. Sorrel was elitaristom intellectuals and underestimated the intelligence of the masses. His main contribution to the strategy Mussolini was the idea that the working masses can perceive the revolutionary consciousness only through myths. This idea is in sharp contrast to the anarchic, Socialist and libertarian-egalitarian-communist spirit of mutual education of people as there are enough reasonable to rationally solve their problems. Anarchists accept the mythology as an instrument of social control by the ruling elites. By the time World War Sorrel concluded that such a myth, able to mobilize people, nationalism can be, so he helped develop fascism.
Many of the Left and New Right in Russia also use the myths to attract people. One of those who openly praises zhtu strategy - a historical revisionist and apologist for the right Tarasov. Several times he penned a legend, and in general are actively engaged in mythmaking. People like AD Kostenko, P. Bylevskogo and A. Tsvetkov also widely use this tool. They are easy to deceive those who know nothing, and convince others that this is just a game and the Orange provocation. "
Radical "communist" press sometimes looks like a set of myths. The most disgusting vpechptlenie leaves "Bumbarash", where you can discover the myths about Mao, Stalin, "Seder lyuminiso" Pol Pot, with a "minor details" are omitted, all data on the repression, murder, all descriptions of what happened to the rebels pr such regimes. All this is true stuff. The same applies to no small number of autonomous psevdoanarhicheskih magazines, where reklamiretsya any first available guerilla. If more acceptable to assume that the radical left magazine could write about Che Guevara or the RAF, the Kim Il Sung and the Sendero lyuminoso "so far from anarchism that articles about them cause really serious questions. I'm worried about punk antiintelliktualizm because it is easy to see how the lack of information is used elites in order to introduce people to the head myths.
But to return to Italian fascism. Benito Mussolini was the first member of the Italian Socialist Party and tried to create a left wing bloc. He became editor of "Avanti!". He wandered around all sorts of radical artists and writers. It reminds me of the situation with "pineapple." Among these writers were celebrities such as Gabriele D'Annunzio, Enrico Corradino (author of the thesis of the "proletarian nations") and Giovanni Papini (While the most popular writer of the country). All of them entertained a strong hostility to bourgeois society. They gave the Nazis Youth avant-garde style, which allowed them to look new and interesting. Papini was an extreme elitaristom and loved not only myths, but also deliberately distorted. He talked a lot about international fraternity just because I wanted to give the movement moral facade. Papini deliberately tried to deceive and attract socialists feel uncomfortable because with a fascist nationalism. Corradino hated bourgeois state and was an original supporter of krutizma. He wanted to create an image of a hero for the masses (As the current "Limonov's party" or Kostenko). But even worse was D'Annunzio and Marinetti. The latter, a famous artist and futrist was most popular in the second place after Mussolini. He considered himself ultraradikalom. His idea of \u200b\u200bwar as the only way of healing the world has become very popular in the revolutionary counterculture and avant-garde.
Then Mussolini pushed the idea of \u200b\u200b"fashi de kombattimento - armed gangs. Their program connects different elements - from the requirements material well-being to sexual freedom, all godilos to attract young people, which he regarded as the vanguard of the revolution. The Nazis wanted to these "guerrillas" subject to strict discipline. Left-wing slogans of social well-being floated right-wing authoritarianism. After the victory of the revolution to keep its results should have been a strong state.
D'Annutsio as a cult figure was somewhat similar to Limonov (he also fought in Yugoslavia, but where successfully). He developed the idea of \u200b\u200bthe role of symbols. The current youth policy this symbolism is important.
In short, the history of Italian Fascism has much in common with its current Russian counterpart. As with the earlier German fascists. They borrowed a lot of German Romanticism and natsionalistichekogo Traffic felkishe "which deified nature, and all national. They preached the idea of \u200b\u200belite fighting forces of genius and indolence of the masses. Vanguard artists, who considered himself a force fighting against bourgeois society, reinforce this position. The declared concern for the welfare of the people was purely paternalistic : in the heart of these avant-garde hated masses, considering them as carriers of bourgeois culture.
most direct connection exists between the ideology NBP (before the split) and the views of J. Evola - a favorite fascist Alexander Dugin. Evola was born in 1898, became the youngest artist just in time peak of Italian Fascism. He became a futurist and Dadaist. Evola adored esoteric, was a Gentile and enjoying spirituality. K materialistic decadent "he experienced an acute hatred. After World War II, when fascism had become already a dirty word, he managed to find a common point with the left and denounced the Americanization of Europe. Evola argued against the multinationals, but argued from the perspective of nationalism. Same easy to detect in the Russian left movement.
Like all avant-garde, Evola put forward the idea of \u200b\u200b"political soldier" - the youth vanguard in the struggle against "capitalist decadence". This idea is like both right and left. But anarchists refer to it critically. On the one hand, the strategy seems logical: the youth is angry and wants to change. But this strategy has significant drawbacks. First of all, age does not necessarily define politichekuyu orientation, to think differently - the same nonsense as the idea of \u200b\u200bthe nation. New generation does not necessarily happen more radical than the old one. Divide people so badly, but in terms of manipulating their "leaders" - very convenient. Young people can look at myself as an avant-garde just because she's young. But we, the anarchists do not want people to feel avant-garde. We want them to understand exactly what to do. We do not want people to be just the soldiers in the wars of unscrupulous "leaders." We strive people to understand the ideas, trying to somehow make them, and became a catalyst for the revolution. We do not intend to play in symbolism, myth-making, etc. We want to stimulate the brains of people. We prefer constructive socialism cheap negativism. Let people see themselves as part of their society as a whole, not as belonging to the categories of "student", "punk", "worker" etc.
in the left movement is a set of unscrupulous leaders, who simply need "Mass". In fact they do not respect the people whom they recruit. Often it is difficult to understand because they lick the ass of youth and kontrkulturschikam. But Despite this anal love, subcultural youth for them - are just pawns in a political game. Their relationship becomes clear when you realize that they consciously misinform people hide their youth policy, or when you hear their claim that the young need only "bread and circuses."
Frankly, In the end we prefer that people who generally can not understand politics, stepped aside. It's better than trying to synthesize anarchism and Leninism. We already spend too much time correcting all but the delusions that cause us psevdolevye and new rules. We believe that we have blatantly stolen positive image of freedom to manipulate people. Take the famous incident at the concert, "Russian Breakthrough" several years ago. It appeared Lemons and Dugin. The first shouted: "Glory to Russia!" (Nationalist slogan), "We are the great white nation in Europe" (a racist and imperialist slogan), "With us God "(religious slogan)," With us, Sasha Barkashov (Fascist slogan), "With us, Victor Anpilov" ("communist slogan), and finally," Anarchy - order's mother! ". Punks were in ecstasy. But, of course, it's not the same. In the middle of a concert, took the floor Dugin. He said: "There is time to break down and a time to build!" Now is the time to destroy. ". Dugin has met a very strong reaction of protest from punks who shouted: "Fascism - by ...". This absurd situation is very revealing. On the one hand, Dugin - a fascist, and his cry was typical of the fascist. But it was not purely a fascist slogan. Lemons are also a fascist. And it was he who proclaimed fascist specific slogans. But he applauded. Probably, the punks perceive Limonov as countercultural figure, and Dugin - as "of civilized" intellectual. You can see that the most successful arms of the New Right - it's aesthetics and avant-garde fashion. In reality, Limonov, Dugin, and not so different, they just play different roles. It Dugin is the "brain", but he needs people like Limonov and flowering, to create a new style.
After the Nazis to fool people, they will pat them on the back, suck up to them, telling them that they - the most revolutionary elements. Then we come and tell them the truth. We understand that the tactics of the Nazis easier to recruit people, but we hope that the eternal beauty of our goals to win. True social revolution can be made only on ethical grounds.
0 comments:
Post a Comment