The Primacy of Politics in the Libertarian Revolution
Hence,
the old Socialists were right about the primacy of the political.
They just had the wrong form of politics, reducing the concept to
that of parliament alone. (Since the 1960s we have known that
“everything is political”) In turn, the old time syndicalists
reduced politics to the parliamentary and claimed to be
anti-political, even though such actions as free speech fights and
attempts to liberate class war prisoners were clearly political in
nature.
The
revolution is thus a political act (more likely a series of
political acts) backed by economic power. The political minus the
economic means a futile revolt. The economic minus the political
means at best a few reforms, but more likely a vicious
counter-revolution. Both the political and the economic have to work
together. Workers councils unite both, as do neighborhood assemblies
working together with syndicalist union locals. The goal is popular
power through assemblies and delegation. (My translation
of the term and concept, poder popular, crucial to the South
American anarchist program.)
As well as syndicalist unions, a revolutionary political organization must exist. The revolutionary organization seeks not to control the population or the revolutionary process, but merely to: 1. prevent hostile, reactionary and authoritarian elements from seizing power, 2. push the movement to smashing the state and replacing it with popular power.
The
assemblies, both neighborhood and workplace, delegate power with
instantly recallable delegates to municipal, regional, provincial
and national levels – as needed. Most effort will be expended at
the neighborhood, municipal and regional levels, unlike the reverse
situation today with the state and its top-down bureaucratic
procedures. The assemblies thus destroy the state and replace it
with direct democratic popular power.
The
experiences of the German and Russian Revolutions, as well as the
Occupy Movement have shown us the potential problems and the means to
offset these problems. The assemblies – at all levels – must be
run by modified consensus procedure, or at the minimum, a “super
democracy” requiring two thirds, or three quarters majority. A
system of simple majority at the assembly level would create a great
danger for the revolution. Reactionary elements who seek to disrupt
the movement and vanguardists who seek to propel themselves into
power and reconstitute the state, are masters at manipulating simple
majority democracy.
Every
group has the right to exclude those hostile to it. Assemblies
should have constitutions or points of agreement specifying that the
assemblies are open to only those people who agree that the
assembly shall be the means of governance. Those opposed to the
assembly concept must be excluded.
Political parties may become
involved in the assembly so long as they publicly express the
primacy of the assembly in writing. Thus, counter-revolutionary
and authoritarian vanguardist elements will be effectively excluded
from the assemblies and popular
power will not fall victim to their machinations. (And as
well, the revolutionary organization(s) will be working to expose
and quarantine such elements.)