On 25th April I commented on an extensive article by George Monbiot (spotted by Ian) with the following words:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arguably these proposals by George Monbiot are nothing but a reformist and palely green cover for the continued development of capitalism. Under the guise of provocatively ridiculing the planting of cannabis in Parliament Square as a merely symbolic substitute for world revolution, he is proposing a series of measures that could stabilise the capitalist system more than any other.
Unlike the defiant marxist critic of the French campaign for the Tobin Tax, (which Monbiot interestingly does not even mention) who confidently proclaims
>The achievement of socialism will change everything.
Monbiot suggests
>If we are to reverse world trade treaties, however, first we must seek to
>democratise global decision-making. Perhaps we should envisage a world
>parliament, rather like the European parliament, governing the activities
>of global agencies.
Clearly the developing global movement against global capitalism faces some difficult debates ahead. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
With the advantage of being a few time zones ahead of us, Ian has again speedily spotted another major strategic article by George Monbiot, which I am forwarding on from LBO-talk.
Monbiot has had his ear extremely well to the ground, has integrated theory with practice over a number of years, and must be listened to. I know for example that he eloquently supported the successful long term occupation of the extensive site on the corner of Wandworth Bridge and the Thames, which focussed the whole question of land ownership and was carried out by anarchists and libertarians as well as socialists.
If the press or the police warn of violence this Mayday, I wonder whether this is being whipped up to intimidate the majority of committed demonstrators. If George Monbiot warns about it, I know this is serious.
We are at a stage in the world anti-capitalist movement where only adventurism can stop the forward momentum. Actions of provocateurs could be the most dangerous development.
On an e-mail list like this one, there is of course no physical violence. But there can be psychological bullying. Would-be or self-proclaimed marxists who ridicule the idea of struggling for global reforms as by definition reformist, whether they be a Tobin tax, or reform of the IMF, are objectively arguing an anarchist position. They may ridicule the class position of their opponents in order to try to silence them, without discussing their own class position, which is invariably tainted by some proletarian impurity, since we all live in a complex class society. Or they ridicule and try to promote a boycott of lists that are so non-sectarian as to allow left-social democrats and liberals on them.
Their only contribution to the growing world anti-capitalist movement by such theoretical efforts is to pose as the sole test of virtue, political determination and resolution in disregard of objective power relations. While talking about being revolutionary they actually have no material strategy for developing the world revolution in parallel in all centres of power in the world. While attacking reformists their exhortations to more revolutionary ardour do amount in practice to nothing more than "break windows, get noticed", or worse: prove your superiority to the mass of demonstrators by your own revolutionary violence so effectively that you give the police the opportunity to crack down heavily, and demoralise the mass of other pariticipants.
There are times in the development of a movement when left-opportunism is more dangerous than right opportunism. But some self-proclaimed marxists disdain to analyse the balance of forces on principle. As Lenin pointed out, that has nothing to do with Marxism.
On the practical issue that Monbiot raises, I suggest the single most effective tactic for the progressive majority is to denounce demonstrators who are masked as in a conspiracy against the movement and as potential provocateurs.
But theoretically the battle between marxism and anarchism must be taken up in ideological argument, not least first with those left opportunists who proclaim themselves, often very loudly, as marxists, but are anarchists, certainly in terms of global politics.
Chris Burford
London
At 30/04/01 20:37 -0700, you wrote:
>Violence is our enemy
>
>Today's May Day protesters must take on the bullies who privately horrify them
>
>Special report: Mayday
>
>George Monbiot
>Tuesday May 1, 2001
>The Guardian