Discussion and Criticism of "The Relationship between Democratic Socialism and Anarchism"

Text / Eisenstein

Typography/Fries Fries

(This article is at a non-professional level, suggestions and criticisms are based on personal experience and knowledge, for reference only, not an official article)

The summary of the impact of Marxist philosophy on the world in the first chapter of Part VII of the History of Philosophy of the World quoted by the author of the article, I feel that under this type of state-owned bureaucracy, workers have no democratic management. The owners of power and its means of production are not workers, but the state, or the representatives of the factories appointed by the state. Its factory production has a weaker relationship with the workers themselves. Being separated from the worker himself makes the worker helpless. But the problem is also that not all Marxists are unaware of this problem, such as committee communists, or other libertarian Marxists of the past, more or less aware of the state bureaucracy and its state-owned question.

The consensus of the anarchists mentioned in the second paragraph is actually weak in terms of common ground. If trusting the people is used as the standard, there can actually be many other ideological connections. And if there is only one thing in common, there are obviously many differences. The authors should strengthen their arguments in this regard. For me, however, the consensus of modern interpretations of democratic socialism and social anarchists is the separation of powers and economic democracy, and the same decentralised planned economy on the part of the left-wing anarchist faction as part of the democratic socialist economy. But this is not inevitable.

In the third paragraph, the author substitutes his own understanding of democratic socialism into democratic socialists as a whole, and it is actually wrong to project such thinking on groups. For this generalized ideology, one should not interpret its own views as representing the views of all democratic socialists. In fact, the same is true for other ideologies, and it cannot be understood as a general understanding. The third paragraph says:

But democratic socialists are not without their differences with the anarchists, who hold different positions on how socialism should be achieved. Democratic socialists advocate constitutional democracy, and they believe the issue of capitalism should be brought to the table and put on the agenda. They believe that if the socialist system is forcibly established through revolution, firstly, the capitalists will be oppressed by tough policies, and secondly, the people will still be unclear about the problems of capitalism, which will eventually make the capitalists unclear. Bourgeois ideology is making a comeback. Some authoritarian socialists may retort that education can be carried out after socialism is forcibly established. Isn't the problem solved? However, in order to prevent bourgeois ideology from counterattacking in a short period of time, it is necessary to carry out high-pressure control of the people's ideology. It is impossible to achieve in a short period of time the way to enable people to think correctly through general education (humanities, logical thinking and critical thinking) for the whole people. Ultimately this will result in the state abandoning the principle of free speech and losing its political ability to correct errors. The greatest function of freedom of speech has never been freedom itself. In addition, to a large extent, in addition to the right to vote, the power of the people is reflected in the freedom of speech.

We can first consider such a logical question, when the socialist system is established through revolution, under what circumstances, under what conditions, and under what political forces can it be established?

This situation is more often the case that the majority of the people cannot bear the policy oppression of the capitalists, and the majority of the people are aware of the problems of the current regime before it can be established. If there is a socialist revolution that can be forcibly established through revolution without the support of any type of people, this is obviously a minority. (The lower ranks of the military can also be counted as members of the public.)

In fact, it can be said that more authoritarian socialists actually support strengthening education during the revolution (although not general education), and in fact, about pre-socialist and post-socialist education, it is actually a difference of personal opinions. Not something unique to authoritarian socialism. For example, some authoritarian people in Marxism-Leninism also agree with Lenin's "The Urgent Task in Our Movement" and wrote: "From this naturally arises the task that the Russian Social Democracy should achieve: to bring socialist ideology and political consciousness together. Indoctrinate the masses of the proletariat and organize a revolutionary party closely linked to the spontaneous labor movement.”

Especially during the revolution there are similar political commissars. Or the proletariat and other revolutionaries who participated in the revolution have learned various experiences in the revolution, but it is not all that they fail to recognize the problems of the bourgeoisie. There may be countries that can become rulers with just the support of the military, but that doesn't apply to more socialist revolutions. And education can be done both before the revolution, after the revolution and during the revolution, not because it is a contradiction in terms of choice.

However, it is too restrictive to think that the general public can resist capitalist countries with a general education. In countries that prohibit gun ownership or strictly control militias, this is very rare, not to mention different factions in real politics. It is also carrying out its own actions, which also makes general education for the whole people not completed before the capitalist crisis, let alone expecting the people who have received general education to resist the capitalists?

In the fourth paragraph the author quotes John Stuart Mill's discussion of the principles of free speech in his book On Liberty:

Opinions that authorities attempt to suppress may be correct. Of course those who want to suppress it don't admit it's correct, but they can never be good forever. They have no right to decide what is right and wrong for all of humanity, or to exclude all other people's ways of judging. By refusing to listen to an opinion because they are certain that it is wrong, they are equating their certainty with absolute certainty. Any prohibition of free discussion is an affirmation of one's own infallibility. Perhaps for this general reason, and not for a reason that ordinary is not good, the practice can be justified. Unfortunately, in human self-knowledge, they are far from applying the fact that they are fallible to practical judgment as theoretically has always been possible.

For me, freedom of speech is an important existence. I don’t think there is an existence that can decide right and wrong for all mankind. Other ideologies are not necessarily wrong, but they also need to be tested. If the authority of some people is turned into an inviolable, and it is also a special cultural power that is endowed. becomes an absolute certainty.

The content in the fifth paragraph is unfriendly to the anarchists, and actually reduces the possibility of union.

In terms of demonstrating the necessity of bureaucratic government, it appears to be problematic. "The system that is easiest to survive in the short term has never been a democratic system or a socialist system. Instead, totalitarian systems and capitalist systems can develop better and more competitive than democratic and socialist systems in many cases." It does not demonstrate the following point of view, "So if there is no bureaucratic government to guarantee the implementation of the Constitution and other laws, in such a situation, the maintenance of socialism is not guaranteed.". And it's not convincing either. It should be an argument for why the bureaucracy is chosen, rather than making totalitarian capitalism better and more competitive as an argument in favor of a bureaucratic government. If so, why choose democracy and socialism, and why not totalitarianism and capitalism?

In the sixth paragraph, the author believes that "the revolution has not really brought the problem to the table, and it will still easily lead to the restoration of capitalism in the end, and it may even make the country lose its political self-correction because it loses the principle of freedom of speech. In fact, the revolution is a reflection of the problem, and it is not the revolution itself that easily leads to the restoration of capitalism, but the system established after the revolution. It may be that some leftists have the idea that the revolutionary military organization system still maintains the socialist system established after the revolution. If the socialist system does not have the power to supervise and control the reduction of such organizations, there will be conditions for the restoration of capitalism. , but this process is rarely felt by some people in the early stage of the system.

I am skeptical of the idea that "revolution leads to ideological opposition", which is not unique to revolution, in socialist revolution it is capitalism versus socialism. What's more, the opposition it leads to is actually capitalism and socialism? If you regard this as a "vicious cycle of hatred and violence", you are indeed right in part. This is the hatred of the proletariat against the capitalists, it is the resentment of long-term or short-term oppression, it is the voice of the people, and this pain make them more prone to violence against their oppressors. Is it necessary to allow the masses to tolerate unconditionally? Or wait until the majority have a general education and endure it further afield? Just as the author said, "Bringing the problem to the table", on the contrary, the single implementation of general education did not expose its profound class contradictions and did not bring the problem to the table. Nor does it contain elements of its socialism.

If it is only after the people have generally received general education that the problem is put on the table for continuous demonstration, it is obviously even more difficult to realize than the revolution, which will delay the arrival of class contradictions in society. If the means of revolution are denied, but the people are intended to be the main force in capitalist criticism, socialism can be truly established. Is this institutional change a type of "political revolution"?

Then there is another question, how difficult is it to get general education in a capitalist country to make the people the main force to criticize capitalism?

Obviously the author did not go to understand more about this difficulty. In today's education system is still in the hands of those in power, how difficult it is to make "the people generally receive general education". After this kind of general education is generally accepted, the people will not Capitalism must be criticized. General education is not directly related to improving the lives of the people. This is more of an obsession. With capitalists in control of the education system, how can it be ensured that the majority of people who receive a general education will be able to stand up and resist? If the implementation of general education in the education system is a symbol of socialism, is this system already in the hands of the masses? Is a "peaceful revolution" already possible?

If the author intends to use this as the only strategy, I think it is too moderate, long and powerless.

If the author is still thinking of other methods, it is not used as the only strategy. Then this can be incorporated into the revolutionary movement as a scheme, similar to the strategy of Consciousness raising.

In the last paragraph, the author emphasizes the possibility of union with anarchism and rejects the possibility of compromise with authoritarian socialists. The lessons of history are absorbed to different degrees by different people, and we have been choosing groups to unite according to ideology, and this individual personality difference has been ignored. I don't think we can explore the possibility of union based on ideology, but the link between emotion and value. (Such a form may only be accomplished under conditions.) Denying the possibility of union with authoritarian socialism may create hidden dangers for its own actions in future political activities. In fact, because the strength of authoritarian socialist groups in different countries is different, it is even more necessary to adjust the coordination and the connection between them.

And I personally think that the relationship with anarchism written in the author's article will not convince most anarchists, because the connection argument in the article is really small, and even in the revolutionary part, it also argues with anarchism. "opposite connection". If you want to advocate a union with anarchists, I think this article is far from enough.

Expansion video: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1tK4y1W7Zf

【English subtitle】Capital and chaebol control American migrant worker George Carlin 【Stand-Up Comedy/Talk Show】