After a brief flirtation with vanguard-centric communism focused heavily on the state (mainly due to my infatuation with Lenin and Trotsky), I have finally settled upon a label which gives me both flexibility and a sense of political identity: libertarian socialist. While there is an obvious distinction between libertarian and state socialism which differentiates me from Stalin sympathizers, the broad base of libertarian socialism allows for me to continue exploring my ideology without fear of seeming unprincipled.
While at Left Forum, I was introduced to the Revolutionary Communist Party. I attended a panel titled “Horizontalism Vs Revolutionary State Power As The Path To Social Transformation”, in which an RCP member went on for twenty minutes talking about how their great leader (Bob Avakian) would lead the ignorant masses through revolution, all while defending the atrocities seen under Mao and Stalin. I came to the realization that a vanguard-led state is a wonderful idea, for the vanguard leaders. Everyone assumes that a vanguard would be fantastic, because when people envision a vanguard, they assume that they are to be the great leader who would make social change a reality. However, while I sat there listening to the ridiculous, dogmatic ramblings of the RCPer, I felt the support for a communist state wash out of me, despite my continued love for Lenin.
And now onto the path of reasoning which led me to libertarian socialism:
I have come to realize that some of the greatest evils in this world are tyranny and totalitarianism. Any system which places the mode of production in the hands of the few gives the privileged elite not just economic power, but social, political, and cultural power as well. This type of system, in my view (and hopefully in the view of anyone who finds the ideals of the Enlightenment admirable), is inherently unjust and morally wrong (specifics on why systems like this, such as capitalism, are unjust and morally wrong deserve another full post). In order to have a just, egalitarian society, it is absolutely necessary to hand power back to the people, with the exception of any power which allows for the exploitation of any individual or group of individuals. This means that in such a system, private property would not exist, or would at least be severely curtailed. While I divide with Marx when it comes to the dictatorship of the proletariat and parts of the class dialectic, I think it is essential that if we are to take one thing away from Marx, it is the materialist conception of history. Unless the people have direct control over not just the political sphere, but the economic sphere as well, freedom will not prosper. The idea that it is the political consciousness which controls the economy is to be flipped upside down. Marx makes the case for this much more eloquently than I have in the preface to “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, where he describes the history of his opinions:
“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines the consciousness.”
However, while I place it on the top of my list of contributions Marx has made to the world, the materialist conception of history is not the only thing we should remember Marx for. Another noteworthy theme throughout Marx's works is that of critique. Marx illustrates the need for revolutions to not look to the past, but to adapt revolutionary theory to their current situation in “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”:
“The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition in regard to the past....In order to arrive at its content, the revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead. There the phrase went beyond the content, here the content goes beyond the phrase.”
Criticism was the very basis for Marxism, as he had become disgusted by the complacency with which students of the Hegelian School so readily accepted the teachings of Hegel. In his doctoral dissertation, he describes his feelings towards immediate realization of a philosophy:
“Also in relation to Hegel it is mere ignorance on the part of his pupils, when they explain one or the other determination of his system by his desire for accommodation and the like, hence, in one word, explain it in terms of morality. They forget that only a short time ago they were enthusiastic about all his idiosyncrasies, as can be clearly demonstrated from their writings.
If they were really so affected by the ready-made science they acquired that they gave themselves up to it in naïve uncritical trust, then how unscrupulous is their attempt to reproach the Master for a hidden intention behind his insight! The Master, to whom the science was not something received, but something in the process of becoming, to whose uttermost periphery his own intellectual heart's blood was pulsating! On the contrary, they rendered themselves suspect of not having been serious before. And now they oppose their own former condition, and ascribe it to Hegel, forgetting however that his relation to his system was immediate, substantial, while theirs is only a reflected one.”
In Marx's article “For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing”, he states that one cannot be fully conscious without constantly critiquing absolutely everything. Only then does a person become philosophical. It is for this reason that I feel the need to criticize any system, regardless of whether there are any other options (which there most certainly are). If asked what I would substitute our current mode of production with, I would refer the questioner to Emma Goldman:
“Anarchism is not, as some may suppose, a theory of the future to be realized through divine inspiration. It is a living force in the affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions. The methods of Anarchism therefore do not comprise an iron-clad program to be carried out under all circumstances. Methods must grow out of the economic needs of each place and clime, and of the intellectual and temperamental requirements of the individual. The serene, calm character of a Tolstoy will wish different methods for social reconstruction than the intense, overflowing personality of a Michael Bakunin or a Peter Kropotkin. Equally so it must be apparent that the economic and political needs of Russia will dictate more drastic measures than would England or America. Anarchism does not stand for military drill and uniformity; it does, however, stand for the spirit of revolt, in whatever form, against everything that hinders human growth. All Anarchists agree in that, as they also agree in their opposition to the political machinery as a means of bringing about the great social change.” (Anarchism: What It Really Stands For)
While the above refers to anarchism alone, I believe that it can be attributed to any system which falls under libertarian socialism. Without recognizing the current situation and constantly revolutionizing and critiquing leftist theory, it is impossible to achieve anything near the society which we as leftists strive for. I cannot give a concrete vision of a future society because I cannot predict the future and the circumstances which will arise from future events. What will always be true, though, is that our current mode of production is unjust and will continue to exploit countless populations of people unless we decide to change it, whether it be through a cultural or violent revolution (or both).
Whichever method we take to change the mode of production, it is absolutely vital that it does not remove power from the people. However, a vanguard alone is not something which should be taken off the table, as an intellectual vanguard with no legal control over the people can help ferment a revolution through which fundamental cultural changes can be made. While there is still much to be explored, it is rather conclusive that a communist state (which has almost exclusively been state capitalism in disguise) is simply not the right way of achieving social justice and creating a free, egalitarian society built on solidarity.
Keeping in tune with solidarity, I will leave you with a quote etched on a bag which the generous Germans of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation so kindly gave out:
“Freedom without equality is exploitation; equality without freedom is oppression. Solidarity is the common root of freedom and equality.”
