Radicalism And Humanism

Radicalism And Humanism

Nildo Viana

Humans are capable of the most beautiful acts and speeches and at the same time, concepts and more ignoble attitudes. They can act with extreme grandeur and generosity on the one hand, and extreme smallness and meanness on the other. This process is of particular importance in the field of revolutionary militancy in which extremism is often confused with radicalism and when this occurs there is a confusion between being revolutionary and be bloody. Therefore it is important to discuss the relationship between humanism and radicalism, as a revolutionary individual must unite the two into one, which does not always happen and thinking about it may clarify and help overcome this dichotomy in some individual cases .

The goal of a revolutionary is obviously the revolution. Undoubtedly, you can not fall into the mistake of believing that everyone who is said to be the only revolutionary for having said such a thing. Not analyzing an individual by the consciousness that he has of himself, as Marx said (1983a). Not least because what is meant by "revolution" and "revolutionary" varies according to the people. A revolutionary in the sense used here which obviously excludes many cases is that individuals who aims at revolution and understand this as a process of human emancipation via emancipation of the workers, or more precisely, of the proletariat. So accordingly excludes those who think that a revolution is a seizure of state power, replacing a government, among other ways of thinking only in the sense of a "political revolution" because human emancipation can only occur through a revolution social, ie the radical transformation of all social relations. If the goal of the revolutionary is the revolution that liberates humanity as a whole, then there is a humanist basis that goal. There is therefore dichotomy between the radicalism of a revolutionary who wants a radical transformation of social relations to free human beings from exploitation, domination, oppression, and humanism. However, precisely this dichotomy often appears and that's what we have to reflect.

The word humanity can also be seen in various forms. It is not up here a conceptual discussion and not address all its manifestations, just expose the two basic forms of existing humanism. One is the romantic humanism, or "abstract", which, as Rousseau (1989), believes that man is "good by nature" and attributes this quality to all human beings without distinction, based on this principle. The human being here is a core value and this is positive, although problematic. To understand its problematic character it needs to move to the radical humanism, which is a concrete humanism.

As opposed to the abstract (in the metaphysical sense), concrete is "a result of their multiple determinations" (Marx, 1983a). In this conception, the human being is neither good nor bad by nature. What characterizes the human essence is work and sociability, as Marx already pointed (Marx, 1983b; Marx, 1988; Marx and Engels, 1991). The human being is active. He, unlike the other animals, acts on the world, transforms nature and humanizes her and himself. It does this in association or cooperation with other human beings, also being a social being. Thus, the conscious teleological work, praxis, and the association with other human beings are human needs, are part of its essence. However, with the emergence of class society, this essence is denied. Work and sociability are perverted, distorted. Work becomes alienated, directed by others, founding the exploitation and domination and sociability becomes, because of this conflict. In capitalism, more specifically, the operation at work and domination occurs through the extraction of surplus value and sociability shall be controlled, in addition to the conflict classes by competition. In this sense, class societies deny human nature and capitalist society leads to such extreme denial.

In these societies, and more broadly in capitalism, the human essence is denied and distorted. Monstrosities emerge from those practiced by individuals to the collective, as can illustrate the case of a psychopath, in the first case and Nazism in the second. So the romantic humanism is illusory. The radical humanism is one that does not ignore the history and the denial of human nature under capitalism, source of psychic imbalances, but also has no illusions with the world of appearance falling into anti-humanism, thinking that human beings are "selfish" by nature, understanding the broader social process based on class struggle. However, the radical humanism also does not confuse existence with essentially no illusions with "empirical" and knows that behind the psychic destruction of human beings and all other problems such as deformed values, reified consciousness, etc., the essence exists, stifled and repressed, but it's there. Everyone has psychic need for association with other human beings and fulfill their potential and if this does not materialize, there are effects, including the revolutionaries are products that. Revolutionaries are the individuals for expressing the desire of human emancipation, of others and of themselves, although many also know that may not live to see it. No doubt this is different from revolt or rebel. The first only dreams of outright destruction in the background do not want to change anything, just want to destroy what he identified as the cause of their ailments. The rebel is one who only asks what it achieves and instead of radically transforming social relations or, in the background, change its position within that society, so it is easily co-opted and corrupted.

Thus, the radical humanism maintains the unity between humanism and radicalism. As it was for Marx, "to be radical is to go to the root, and the root for man is man himself" (1977). Radicalism without direction there is pseudorradicalismo. It can not generate human liberation becoming inhuman. Humanism without radicalism is romanticism and the "radicalism" without humanism is inconsequential extremism. The romantic humanism generates reformism or sentimentality and extremism generates authoritarianism, morality, nihilism. For revolutionary praxis or abstract humanism or extremism are appropriate. Only the radical humanism is corresponding to such a practice. The radical humanism prevents naive actions derived from romantic humanism, such as thinking that a popular demonstration during radicalized social struggles can appeal to the kindness and non-violence of the repressive state apparatus (police, army). Likewise, also avoids the practice of the Jacobean terror. As Rosa Luxemburg put,

"The proletarian revolution does not need terror to achieve its goals, it hates and abhors the murder. It does not need these means of struggle because it does not combat individuals but institutions, because it does not enter the arena full of naive illusions that lost, would lead to a bloody revenge. It is not the desperate attempt of a minority to mold the world forcibly according to its ideal, but share the great mass of the millions of men of the people, called to fulfill its historic mission and to make the historical need a reality "( LUXEMBOURG, 1991, p. 103).

Accordingly, it can not fall into the romantic humanism misconceptions and derivatives (sentimentality, pacifism, reformism) nor the reckless extremism (authoritarianism, morality, nihilism, aggression or unnecessary violence), both in revolutionary moments as in periods of retreat the labor movement, these two types of action only hinder the advancement of the struggle for radical transformation of society. It is for this reason that both the romantic humanism as extremism must be overcome by radical humanism.

References

FROMM, Erich. The Dogma of Christ. 5th edition, Rio de Janeiro, Zahar 1986.

LUXEMBURG, Rosa. What Whether Spartacus League? In: LUXEMBURG, Rosa. The Russian Revolution. Petrópolis, Vozes, 1991.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. The German Ideology (Feuerbach). 3rd Edition, São Paulo, Hucitec 1991.

Marx, Karl. Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. 2nd Edition, São Paulo, Martins Fontes, 1983a.

Marx, Karl. Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Introduction. Magazine Themes of Humanities. Sao Paulo, Grijalbo, vol. 2, 1977.

Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. In: FROMM, E. The Marxist concept of man. 8th Edition, Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1983b.

Marx, Karl. The capital. Vol 1. 3rd Edition, São Paulo, New Culture, 1988.

ROUSSEAU, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men. Sao Paulo: Attica, 1989.

Self-managed Marxism and Anarchism

Self-managed Marxism and Anarchism

Nildo Viana

What is the difference between self-managed Marxism (others use other names, but here it is worth noting that we use self-managed Marxism as the form/name contemporary of authentic Marxism, which has always been "self-managed" without using such a word and merely to distinguish it from pseudomarxism, Leninism and its derivatives and to express its contemporary manifestation) and anarchism? When asked several times about it then becomes necessary to go more structured way what distinguishes one from the other.

First, it must be clear that it is the self-managed Marxism and not of any supposed "Marxism" because the pseudomarxism Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, guevarista, among others, are self-managed character deformations of Marxism and so are more distant from anarchism. The self-managed Marxism has close proximity to some elements of anarchism, especially its fundamental principles. These fundamental principles would be the thesis of the immediate abolition of the state apparatus, denial and criticism of the authorities and forms of domination and social hierarchies. The self-managed Marxism also points to such principles, but nevertheless, it is not "anarchist", unless it is reduced anarchism that. Similarly, the self-managed Marxism is not limited to this and has other fundamental principles, some of which are in some specific currents of anarchism, sometimes not.

The self-managed as Marxism has the following fundamental principles: the history of class societies is the history of class struggle; the proletariat is the revolutionary class of our time; proletarian self-emancipation (proletarian revolution carried out by the working class and its allies) is the embodiment of human emancipation (revolutionary humanism, concrete); self-management is the essence of the new society that emerges after capitalism, not being "part of it", but its essence and generalizing the set of social relations; the proletarian revolution can only be victorious abolishing the state and capital, without the ideology of "transitional period"; the revolutionary organizations must have a revolutionary strategy and overcome reboquismo and the avant-garde; bureaucracy is a counterrevolutionary class and therefore must be fought, and all bureaucratic organizations (parties, unions, state, etc.); cultural struggle is one of the key actions to be carried out by revolutionary groups; it is necessary to unify the revolutionary strategy means and ends and place as fundamental the ultimate goal (social ownership) and this determines the means and derived it is necessary to prevent counterrevolutionary concessions (participation in bourgeois democracy, for example).

Thus, the self-managed Marxism has proximity to certain tendencies of anarchism and removal of others. The self-managed Marxism is opposed to individualist Anarchist   and anarcho-syndicalism. The first is because of its bourgeois character (individualistic) and the second to his relationship with the unions, bureaucratic organizations (except for the beginning of capitalism, its heroic period before the bureaucratization). It is also far from dogmatic anarchism, which simplifies and reduces anarchism to certain ideas (or thinking of certain anarchist thinker) that become dogma and reason for refusing to judge, condemn all who do not fit them or not then all is "anarchism" (in the exact form that the dogmatic defined, ie its current and / or interpretation).

In relation to what we call revolutionary anarchism, in which the anarcho-coletivism and anarchist communism fit, the differences are much smaller, provided that their non-dogmatic demonstrations. In addition to the agreement with regard to fundamental principles, there are other elements in common. No doubt this is not to say, too, that there is no difference, but they are smaller both in the matter of quantity and depth.

However, we must clarify that there are general differences between self-managed Marxism and anarchism in general, ie including all its chains. This is due to the fact that Marxism (Marx, communism advice, self-managed Marxism) is theoretical and political expression of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, which means it is a theory whose purpose is to revolution and self-management. In this sense, self-managed Marxism has a theoretical basis, from Marx's theory of history, undergoing several other theories produced by him (over developing the theory of the capitalist mode of production) and his followers, such as the theory of workers' councils Anton Pannekoek and councilists communists, to the latest and development and subsequent update. Anarchism is a political doctrine and not a theory. That's what allows anarchism, even in its best expressions, ends falling in eclecticism, using as base (methodological and / or theoretical) bourgeois ideologies (classic positivism, post-structuralist positivism) and also end up ending up with relative ease, due to its voluntarism, in dogmatism, pragmatism, khvostism, revolutionary spirit.

This is not a small difference, because when the bourgeois anarchism ends up taking positions as theoretical or methodological basis, undertakes, as this ends up intervening in the analysis of reality and therefore in political practice. A mistaken analysis of reality generates decision-making and carrying out also misguided actions. The methodological concepts and "theoretical" (ideological) bourgeois, produced by various sciences (especially the "human") have a whole evaluative basis, sentimental, rational and interests that are closely linked to capitalist society and its reproduction process. No need here to rescue the character of classic positivism of Comte and others who had resonances in the works of Bakunin and other anarchists of the time (Kropotkin, Reclus, etc.), and its relationship with the reproduction of capitalism and conservative essence.

Similarly, the counterrevolutionary character of post-structuralism ("postmodernism") is too obvious to be necessary to explain that, starting from its methodological and ideological conceptions (supposedly "theoretical") could make decisions and implement revolutionary actions . Obviously in this case the revolutionary anarchism is somewhat minimized, since it is united with revolutionary principles but ends up self-limiting because of such a base. A methodological basis and bourgeois ideological together with a revolutionary doctrine forms a eclecticism and depending on which side of the balance weighs more, it can become, at worst, harmful to the struggle for human liberation and, at best, somewhat limited and contradictory, creating obstacles to their overall development. Of course you will still have multiple nuances depending on the context, circumstances, individuals, etc. However, the overcoming of eclecticism is essential for the revolutionary anarchism assume the position which is consistent with its fundamental principles.

We could assume two possibilities for overcoming such. The first possibility would be to adopt Marxism as their theoretical and methodological basis, the historical and dialectical materialism (which includes not only the dialectical method, the theory of history, as well as capitalist theory). The traditional rejection of anarchism to use the historical and dialectical materialism is a huge obstacle to overcome this problem. Such a refusal would have as a source conflicts between Marx and anarchistic last, first, and subsequently pseudomarxismo and anarchism. Moreover, it has the distinct positions of Proudhon and Bakunin, among others, due influence of positivism. However, Bakunin accepted historical materialism, despite not having properly understood, confusing it with the bourgeois materialism and the positivist conception, as seen in his discussion of materialism and the issue of "facts." This is an obstacle to more, especially after the emergence of Leninism, ideological expression of bureaucracy, which distorted the historical and dialectical materialism, according to the interests of the party bureaucracy and Russian state capitalism and ended up generalizing and becoming the dominant version the "Marxism". This is another obstacle to a real understanding of historical and dialectical materialism, which brings the need to resume the production of Marx and his best followers (Labriola, Korsch, the young Lukács in some respects, Pannekoek, etc.).

The second possibility would be anarchism generate, in an original way, their own theoretical and methodological basis. This solution, however, would be merely formal, ie a language change, as the historical and dialectical materialism has pointed to the essential elements in this process and it would be just the same idea in another form, a new linguistic form to a concept already Existing. The only advantage of this solution would appease the minds of dogmatic anarchists and not have to refer to Marxism, something so childish and childlike that only makes sense, of the self-managed Marxist perspective, for from the idea that the struggle and its content is more important and can make this kind of concession not affect the revolutionary process.

In this sense, self-managed Marxism and the revolutionary anarchism have close and differences, common points and differences in points, and in some cases the difference is radical, express distinct class positions, the proletarian perspective of self-managed Marxism in confronting bourgeois perspective or of another class of dogmatic anarchism, anarcho-individualism or anarcho-syndicalism; in other cases, the difference is reduced but not abolished, because due to several other minor differences, immediate political action, situations, idiosyncrasies, understanding of reality, design of action, terminological differences, etc., that may intensify or minimize.

Anyway, in relation to the anarchist tendencies that are not allies of the revolutionary proletariat [1], the position of the self-managed Marxism is critical and combat, as well as advancement of hope towards a revolutionary perspective, and in practice depends on the positions and concrete actions, which trend (human emancipation via proletarian revolution or vanguardism-khvostism reinforcing the counterrevolution) strengthens this process. If the trends of anarchism that are allied to the revolutionary proletariat, the position of the self-managed Marxism is of alliance and joint struggle, as long as they maintain their consistency in this regard.

In short, self-managed Marxism and revolutionary anarchism are close, but different and what interests in their approach is the contribution to human emancipation, and the approaching or the distance is the proximity or distance in relation to this goal, self-managed proletarian revolution .

[1] revolutionary proletariat means the self-determined working class, that is, that breaks with the capitalist relations of production, with the capital. This differs from the proletariat as a class determined by capital, that is, seeking only to survive or improve their situation within capitalism (performing only fight vindicating), which is the starting point for the fight and move towards becoming self-determined, but that for this reason it is necessary to wage a fight to go in this direction and the militant and revolutionary organizations should from the perspective of the proletariat as self-determined class. Stay at the level of the proletariat as a particular class (by saying "anarchist", "councilist", "situationist", etc.) is falling in reboquismo, a reformist position despite not having ties with the bourgeois institutions. The voluntarism, pragmatism, anti-intellectualism, among other things, are very close to these positions, very common in anarchism. This is the product of its doctrinal character and non-theoretical.