Based on the assumption that war and violent domination do not designate a desirable state of human affairs, this paper will maintain an uncompromising revolutionary position concerning the construction of a world which ought to be. The ideological foundation underpinning this assertion of the "ought" rests on the notion that global and interpersonal cooperation provides the solid ground required for an absolutely free and positively creative existence which corresponds to our essential human needs. Thus, anything short of a free and egalitarian order within local communities and on an international level is unacceptable. Of course, this militant socialist assertion of freedom and equality is commonly discounted as utopian and impractical. The impracticability of this position is often evidenced by the brutal failure of the Soviet Union as a "socialist project " and the subsequent failure of Marxist ideology. Admittedly, Marxist-Leninist and various neo-Marxist positions are common ideological slants among those who argue for revolutionary change. However, these positions do not represent a universal norm encompassing all revolutionary socialist tendencies.
In terms of revolutionary Russia, it is important to note that there were various ideologies of socialism consolidating as active political forces apart from Lenin’s Red Bolshevik party. In this paper, the revolutionary force of the Ukrainian Makhnovist anarchist resistence will be explored as a radical alternative to the Bolshevik system. Further, it will be argued that the anarchist communist program of the Makhnovist movement is representative of the true goals and the real essence of a viable revolutionary socialist transformation. Certainly, the strongest criticism of a Makhnovist anarchist framework can be found within the realist position. Thus, in this paper, the principles of a Makhnovist revolutionary anarchist approach will face the ruthless criticism of a realist perspective which will beg the important question: in an inherently imperfect world, how would the anarchist ideals of the Makhnovists amount to anything other than the same ultimate failure faced by Bolshevism? Rest assured, however, that a revolutionary anarchist communist platform will emerge unscathed from this challenge.
In order to elucidate the central tenants of the Makhnovist revolutionary position, it is necessary to begin by detailing the historical emergence of this movement. In March 1918, only five months after Lenin’s successful Bolshevik revolution, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty was signed by Bolshevik power which allowed Germany and Austria-hungry to seize control of the Ukraine. It was out of this context that a force of resistence consolidated which was propelled by the guidance and revolutionary spirit of anarchist Nestor Makhno. This force of resistence, known under the title of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, was an anarchist communist peasant army which was successful in forcing out German and Austria-Hungarian occupation and the accompanying Hetmen authorities.
Following the defeat of occupying Central Powers, Makhnovist forces were hurled into another bloody struggle against two invading factions engaged in the Russian civil war, namely, Denikin’s traditionalist White army and Lenin’s Bolshevik Red army. While at times allying with the Red army due to their common struggle against Denikin’s White army, the Makhnovists engaged in a struggle of independence against Lenin’s invading Red army. Indeed, the goals, principles and prime political objectives of the Makhnovists represent a radical departure from Bolshevik centralist and statist notions of socialism. Instead of a belief in hierarchical order and state-socialism, the Makhnovists held a commitment to the principles of anarchist communism. This is most evident in their construction of Free Territories wherever their oppressors were forcefully driven out. Such territories were managed according to a non-hierarchical, cooperative, free, egalitarian and participatory form of organization which represented true workers’ self-governance. Thus, in the Manifestos of the Makhnovist Movement, it is stated that " . . .only through the destruction of the state by means of social revolution can the genuine Worker-Peasant soviet system be realized and can we arrive at socialism."
In stark contrast to the vision of free and voluntary association put forth by the anarchists, Lenin’s form of communism sought to build a model of workers’ control on the old state framework which once upheld the control of the bourgeois. The ultimate goal was the creation of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as preached in the dialectical gospel of Marx. This was modified, of course, to place power in the hands of an elite Vanguard party of "professional revolutionaries" who supposedly knew what was best for the proletariat. From its origins then, Marxist-Leninism hinged on the notion that hierarchical authority, if properly utilized, can serve as a tool for emancipation. Thus, in Lenin’s 1902 work What Is To Be Done? , he asserts ". . . that no revolutionary movement can be durable without a stable organization of leaders which preserves continuity . . . "
Alternatively, the anarchist program advocates an immediate and total revolution which is guided organically by the free desires of the workers themselves. For anarchists, a true revolution and the construction of an ideal mode of human organization includes the " . . . utilization of a direct and federative alliance and collaboration of the economic, social, technical, or other agencies (unions, cooperatives, etc.) locally, regionally, nationally, internationally, . . ." Thus, it is no surprise that Lenin viewed such true revolutionaries as a threat to his Bolshevik system of dominance and hierarchy. For this reason, Lenin initiated a violent campaign in 1919 against at all anarchists within Bolshevik territory which involved negative propaganda, arrests and executions. Moreover, the Red invasion of Ukraine was carried out with orders attached for soldiers to capture and imprison all Makhnovist revolutionaries. The Makhnovist anarchist revolutionary movement and the truly socialist communities which were established within Free Territories exemplify the real embodiment of a viable socialist order. However, this movement was violently suppressed by the very regime that is most commonly pointed toward as an example of a "socialist project." Nevertheless, a revolutionary anarchist communist position must ultimately face the somewhat compelling criticism of a realist perspective.
A typical realist criticism would attempt to dismantle the foundation of a revolutionary anarchist ideology on two main fronts: human nature and the nature of the international realm itself. The notion of a malleable human nature which is capable of supporting an egalitarian mode of organization is an implicit belief underlying socialist anarchist theory. By contrast, a realist analysis views human nature as inherently flawed and imperfect. The realist understands human nature to be plagued by what Reinhold Niebuhr calls a relativistic anxiety. Drawing from a biblical understanding of "the fall" of humankind from Devine standards, Niebuhr asserts that our imperfect nature results in the constant presence of inequality and a subsequent feeling of anxiety which pits us against each other. This notion of an inherently conflicting and unequal human condition is carried throughout all realist approaches and informs the unanimous belief that humans are doomed to an existence of shifting power relations and will forever be subject to the realities of injustice. Thus, although the anarchist ideal presents a desirable state of human affairs, a realist will claim that it is an unobtainable dream.
The second argument offered by a typical realist criticism is perhaps even more compelling than the general attack on human nature. According to a realist, the real world is characterized by constant international struggle between states pursuing their own self-interests through force. In turn, the constant pressure of a chaotic international realm works to dictate the boundaries of action within which any state must operate for its own well being. This reality of on going competition and the constant threat of force would be sure to crush any society or federated entity which possesses no military power and is committed to the unobtainable anarchist ideals of egalitarianism and cooperation. Thus, Zakaria highlights the point made by Waltz which suggests that although human nature can account for many instances of peace and is thus not all "bad," the international realm imposes upon the actions of any rational actor wishing to ensure the self-preservation of their country. According to a realist, it is this structural imposition which rules out the possibility of creating a "true socialist world order" regardless of whether the ideological slogan is of communism, Bolshevism, Menshevism, Leninism, Maknovism, anarchism, or any other host of "ism’s." In sum, a realist would claim that all idealist ideologies would eventually meet their failure in real practice due to the eternal reality of an imperfect world in regards to both the human condition and the character of the international realm. For the realist, the ideal world which ought to be will always stand in stark contrast to the world that is.
Fortunately, the grim perspective offered by realism, which works to defend a status quo of injustice and inequality, can still be challenged through the insights offered by anarchist political philosophers. Indeed, the Makhnovist revolutionaries held a belief in anarchist communism - a theory articulated by Peter Kropotkin. In his work Mutual Aid, Kropotkin lays out a scientific understanding of human nature which treats it as an evolutionary phenomenon propelled forward by the motor of mutual cooperation. In contrast to the prevailing evolutionary theories of social Darwinism, which functioned to justify capitalist relations of exploitation, Kropotkin asserts that our innate social instincts and the powerful force of human solidarity have contributed more toward ensuring our basic survival versus relations of competition and domination. Moreover, Kropotkin claims, the stable conditions created by mutual aid have functioned historically as the basis for our intellectual and creative development. Further, Kropotkin sees an integrative development taking place in terms of the inclusiveness of cooperative relations. Whereas cooperation begins with relations between isolated individuals, it spreads to clans, nations and, eventually, it will reach the international level. Thus, the full flowering of our humanity requires free and cooperative relations of equality worldwide. Perhaps, Niebuhr’s picture of a "fallen" humankind is inappropriate. Instead, a picture of humanity which is constantly evolving and striving toward ever greater degrees of cooperative morality is the most accurate. Of course, this process of growth will require an anarchist revolution for its full development.
The criticism offered by realism concerning the reality of a chaotic international realm seems to pose a significant barrier to the anarchist vision of an ideal world. However, this analysis, which pretends to be objective in its approach, actually reflects the embedded values and the specific version of reality constructed by the existence of states. It is easy to see that the current international realm is characterized by a constant struggle for power between states. What must be considered is that an anarchist ideology completely pulverizes the legitimacy of the state all together. Whereas statesmen may be structurally influenced in seeking to preserve the security of the state, an anarchist revolution would totally destroy such artificial divisions and would thus eliminate the necessity of war and constant struggle. In other words, the "real" world simply reflects the realities of a hierarchical order in which the full development of humanity remains stagnant. Anarchist revolution, as seen in the example of the Makhnovists, seeks to fundamentally alter this reality. Conflict between states presupposes the existence of states. Anarchy presupposes a form of organization which corresponds to a free humanity.
Anarchist feminist philosopher and Makhnovist sympathizer Emma Goldman once wrote, "[Revolution] is the transvaluator, the bearer of new values. It is the great teacher of the new ethics, inspiring man with a new concept of life and its manifestations in social relationships. It is the mental and spiritual regenerator." Indeed, the ideology which informs revolutionary action is of paramount significance. The anarchist platform advocates complete and total liberation in line with our greater potential as human beings. Thus, the example of the Makhnovists is important to consider for any individual inclined to view international relations in terms of the construction of an ideal world. Makhnovist ideology, commitment and practice present the only true and viable global socialist revolutionary project - anarchy.
"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even looking at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realization of Utopias . . ."
- Oscar Wilde
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment