The Radical Child

Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red by Alex Prichard
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Recently, I've been exploring different ideological texts because I believe there is good in any ideology and had gone through Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto, which was enjoyable and actually beautifully written, even if I didn't agree 100% with it. I would eventually learn of the existence of The Political Compass, which divided ideology into the Authoritarian Left and Right, and the Libertarian Left and Right. The quiz placed me in the Libertarian Left, which I found a bit surprising at the time, though then again, most of my favorite political quotes were spoken by leftists like Noam Chomsky, but at the same time I feel the logic of the Right is way better.

Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red opens with a preface indicating its aim to show the anarchist-Marxist schism the Bolshevik revolution made was neither final nor complete, with two main events attempting this niche ideology: the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico in 1994 and the Rojava revolution that has been occurring since 2011. The introduction notes the book is about the combination of the ideals of anarchism and Marxism, focusing on their interrelationship, with Karl Marx presenting a historicized conception of nature that demonstrates human essence is changed through the process of revolutionary action.

Paul Blackledge argues that anarchist criticisms of Marx's statism bequeath themes from liberalism serving to halt the democratic aspirations of anarchism. All political systems in practice lead to the suppression of the ego, with social anarchists mediating it by mixing it with more social conceptions of human nature. Marx's revolutionary model was based on his recognition that worker unity could only be achieved through class struggle. Marx claimed that the Commune was antithetical to imperialism but a working-class government. Anarchism is understood as sitting at a political fork in the road to the extent that it is a mix of a socialist critique of capitalism and a liberal critique of communism.

Ruth Kinna states that William Morris' commitment to revolutionary socialism is established well, but that his political nature relating to Marxism and anarchist thought is still contested. The Social Democratic Federation, the Fabian Society, and the Hammersmith Socialist Society issued the Manifesto of English Socialists on May 1, 1893, which called on socialists to communize society. Individualism was a central term in late Victorian political debate and disagreements about the role of the state that objected to collectivism. Morris' rejection of anarchism was fueled in particular by his frustrations with the Socialist League and political violence during the 1890s.

Lewis H. Mates focuses on the British "labour revolt" before World War I, which saw millions of working days lost to strikes and the growth of trade unions. Three currents involving Marxists and anarchists shaped the tendencies arising with British syndicalism: the writings of Marxist Daniel De Leon, the French, and the libertarian Guy Aldred's Herald of Revolt. Two aspects of the Durham Coalfield syndicalists' politics--their dogmatism and their sectarianism, damaged their influence. Revolutionary activists are often confronted with dilemmas whenever faced with favorable circumstances to propagate their politics.

Georges Sorel was important in developing radical leftist theory early in the twentieth century, his ideas influencing various Marxist thinkers. He noted that violence prepared workers for revolution, with Renzo Llorente noting that Sorel's work Reflections on Violence was eccentric, with standard Marxist positions alongside anarchist ones. The revolutionary general strike was a "catastrophic" occurrence, precipitating the passage from capitalism to socialism, from oppression to liberation, the chief aim being to motivate workers. In the end, Sorel's anarcho-Marxism had much to recommend, but Marxists could still profit from considering his ideas carefully.

Carl Levy focuses on Antonio Gramsci, with his relationship between his Marxism and the anarchist/syndicalist traditions being complex and intriguing. Gramsci employed the daily concerns of Turin's labor and cooperative movements as laboratories to develop and illustrate his complex theories early in his career. Gramsci never questioned the Marxist monopoly legitimate thought and action and never considered anarchists gadflies of their revolution, with their warnings about the Soviet Union not fully accepted by him. Levy in the end mentions that anti-capitalist revolution was also a theoretical revolution against positivist encrustations, which enveloped and could have tarnished Marxism.

Saku Pinta examines Council Communist perspectives on anarchosyndicalist participation in the Spanish Civil War and Revolution from 1936 to 1939 through American communist theorists. The Dutch-German Council Communist represented one of the most significant, original revolutionary Marxist movements of the interwar period, originating from a radical Left minority in the German Social Democratic Party and the Dutch "Tribunist" group, who extensively collaborated. In Spain, the Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia would attempt to assert authority during the Spanish Civil War. The American counsilists, who sympathized with the cause of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists, were critical at their performance.

Christian Høgsbjerg focuses on C.L.R. James, his early relationship with anarchism, and the intellectual origins of autonomism. His early politics as a young teacher and journalist were reformist, although he would receive influence from Peter Kropotkin. The chapter elaborates on General Motors car worker Phil Singer, who kept a diary with which he intended to depict "Life in the Factory," what workers were thinking and doing while working. James, in the end, stressed the creativity and spontaneity of the working class, leading commentators to detect anarchism in his political thought.

Andrew Cornell highlights the Marxist and antiracist roots of modern American anarchism, mentioning the blockading of protest areas and property destruction, with "oppressed" populations disagreeing over tactics. The antiwar New York City newspaper Why? would start, and both the imprisonment of protesters would lead to modified beliefs. The editors of the Rebel Worker recognized a small group of New York artists who produced the magazine Black Mask. In the end, the anarchist-pacifists of the 1940s and 1950, along with the cultural revolutions of the 1960s, led to a departure from the class struggle-based anarchism in America prior to the Second World War.

David Berry focuses on Daniel Guérin, who introduced a synthesis of Marxism-Leninism, Guérin himself coming from a bourgeoisie background that he would reject. He would reject social democracy and Stalinism, not to mention Trotskyism, and wanted to return to the roots of revolutionary theory and praxis. He further insisted that Marx and Engels envisioned proletariat dictatorship as being exercised by the working class rather than by an avant-garde and saw the importance in self-management. Ultimately, fellow revolutionaries were mixed as to how well Guérin succeeded in synthesizing libertarianism and communism.

Benoît Challand focuses on the French group Socialisme ou Barbarie (SouB), associated with psychoanalyst Cornelius Castoriadis. There would be different generations in SouB, with Trotskyists featured prominently among ex-communists, most becoming as such because of their disillusionment with the Moscow trials of the 1930s or Stalin's inaction towards fascism. While people faithful towards historical materialism didn't see what was Marxist, Castoriadis believed in the classical Marxist theme of alienation and was attuned to a socially-constructed and language-mediated vision of that which was political. Castoriadis' later views on society would be caught in a battle against heteronomy on part of external instituted political, social, and cognitive order, echoing Lefort's work and writings against totalitarianism.

Jean-Christophe Angaut notes that situationists have often been reduced to mere artists criticizing everyday life, detached from any social struggles. The theoretical attempts by situationists in the 1960s can't be separated from their politics and context, with the emergence of workers' councils in the Hungarian uprisings of 1956 key to explaining Debord's praise of them and the reasons he didn't repeat Marx's praise of the Commune.
In summation, situationist critique is often reduced to its negative dimension and its attempts to extend beyond outdated oppositions, with its concepts of unity and totality having yet to be questioned.

Toby Boraman focuses on anarchism and councilism, a form of libertarian socialism influenced heavily by council communism that converged in Australasia during the 1970s. Australasian anarchists and councilists sought to keep their own praxis while taking inspiration from movements in other advanced capitalist countries. During the 1950s and 1960s, most working-class Australians and New Zealanders were experiencing rising living standards, employment, and widespread affluence. New Zealand carnivalists were highly involved in organizing part of the unpaid wing of the working class, chiefly the unemployed. In contrast, situs and the carnival anarchists were impatient in believing total revolution needed to immediately occur.

David Bates focuses on post-Marxist philosophers Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, attempting to situating their beliefs and explaining the concept of autonomism. Negri lamented upon anarchism and insurrection, with the question proposed of whether socialism undercut the power of the proletariat. Hardt and Negri radicalized biopower, harnessing it to the cause of radical politics in postmodernism. The lumpenproletariat, the politically apathetic, are suggested to be a bad ally, with identity politics (a biggie in contemporary American political discourse) and anticapitalism touched upon. Bates concludes by suggesting that locating Hardt and Negri's thoughts wasn't straightforward.

Saku Pinta and David Berry's conclusion focuses on the depolarization of global politics, the ideological crisis of the Left, and the increased illegibility of many social struggles. Overall, I found this to be an interesting collection of essays, even if it frequently felt disjointed, that gave really good history, most of which I never knew about, and there are plenty of legitimate good ideas like the mentioned belief that managers shouldn't earn more than their regular workers. One major issue perhaps is that it doesn't make any effort to reconcile with the mainstream Libertarian Right, but it was a nice experience looking into a very niche ideology.

View all my reviews