|
Introduction to this issue
[Volume 2, Number 2 - Spring 1978 issue of
The Red Menace]
As the article "What
is The Red Menace?" (P.10 in this issue)
makes clear, there are differing ideas about what The Red Menace
should be. Part of the problem revolves around the desire, on the
one hand, to make this newsletter a forum for the exchange of a
broad range of opinions covering the spectrum of the libertarian
left (which leaves the question of how to define "libertarian")
and the desire, on the other hand, to make The Red Menace
an expression of the views of the people working on it. One thing
which we feel would be useful in dealing with the situation is to
begin each issue with a brief introduction explaining some of the
themes of the issue, the choice of major articles, and indicating
how the collective evaluates important or contentious articles.
The publication of our first two issues brought us a good deal of
favourable response, much of it from anarchists. Many seemed to
assume we are anarchists; other people wrote to ask what, if anything,
distinguishes our politics from anarchism. In an attempt to answer
that question (for ourselves as well as for our readers) we are
attempting to encourage articles on this and other basic political
questions on the libertarian left. In this issue, there are several
articles on the topic, from rather different perspectives. A member
of the collective, Ulli
Diemer, has contributed two articles, ("Anarchism
vs. Marxism" and "Bakunin
vs. Marx") which look at the roots of the anarchist/marxist
split, and take up a number of general issues in the anarchism/Marxism
debate. Diemer takes a pro-Marxist position, and argues that the
rejection of Marxism by most present-day anarchists has more to
do with the false identification of Marxism with Leninism, and with
the failure of most anarchists to find out anything about Marxism
before attacking it, than with any serious consideration of Marx's
own views. He raises a number of points of disagreement with anarchism,
but suggests that they can and should be overcome. Diemer's position
substantially reflects the views of many members of the Libertarian
Socialist Collective, but is not the group's 'official' position:
at least one member of the collective, in fact, intends to write
a reply to the articles for the next issue.
A diametrically opposed view is contained in P. Murtaugh's "The
End of Dialectical Materialism: An Anarchist Reply to the Libertarian
Marxists". Murtaugh essentially argues that 'libertarian
Marxism' is either honest confusion, or deliberate opportunism,
but in any case not a defensible political position. The Libertarian
Socialist Collective categorically rejects Murtaugh's analysis,
which we think displays an ignorance of Marx and Marxism that is
unfortunately widespread among many people who style themselves
anarchists. Nevertheless we welcome the way it confronts the issue
frontally, thereby opening a discussion which we think can potentially
be very fruitful. We are confident that libertarian socialism and
anarchism are fundamentally in tune, but we think it important that
misunderstandings and disagreements be confronted openly and vigorously.
(It should also be noted that Murtaugh's article is not necessarily
representative of anarchists generally - some anarchist comrades,
in fact, objected to its publication because they considered it
too unrepresentative.)
Our purpose in encouraging discussion on this and other issues is
not of course to create division among people who are presently
able to work well together; rather, it is an attempt to elaborate
the basis on which unity between different kinds of libertarians
is possible. We strongly believe that theoretical and strategic
questions have to be dealt with critically and frankly, not swept
under the rug for fear of the results. Questions of goals, strategy,
and organization are central to any political movement. It should
be possible - must be possible - for libertarians to discuss ideas
and actions, criticize each other, and differ where necessary, without
hostility and splits resulting. Hopefully we libertarians are mature
enough to engage in the vigorous exchange of ideas without fracturing
our movement.
A radicalism that is to be more than abstract rejection of capitalist
society has to develop a radical critique of the way things are
done in this society, and develop alternatives. One critical problem
is that of technology: is there a liberatory way of using technology,
or is most current technology inherently capitalist, suited only
to hierarchical society whose relation to nature is that of domination?
One of the most important attempts to develop an analysis of the
liberatory potential of technology has been developed by Murray
Bookchin. In his article
on Bookchin Tom McLaughlin examines some of the directions that
Bookchin has explored.
A specific example of an attempt to use technology in a liberatory
way is the revolutionary radio station in Bologna: Radio Alice.
Radio Alice takes its name from Alice In Wonderland, and has attempted
to similarly invert language and logic in a subversive way. Last
year, it was also caught up in an attempt to subvert the City of
Bologna in a slightly more traditional way: when street fighting
broke out, Alice acted as a centre of communication and co-ordination,
with non-stop broadcasting of events on the streets as they happened.
In this issue, we feature an
excerpt from that broadcast.
The discussion of work and other daily life experiences begun in
the last
issue continues in this one with another article
on office work, which discusses what it's like to work in a
highly structured office environment.
A number of debates from the last issue are taken up again in this
issue in the "Exchange" section (P. 18). Included
are a response to Ed Clark's "Why
the Leninists Will Win" entitled "Why
the Leninists Will Lose"; a reply from the Wages
for Housework group at Bain Avenue to criticism of them in the
last
issue, and a counter-reply
to the charges they make; and a piece by Simon Rosenblum arguing
for working
in the NDP. (The collective is in complete disagreement with
Rosenblum on this, but considers the question of the NDP an important
one which should be discussed. Replies to Rosenblum, as well as
to anything else in the issue, are welcome.)
Published in Volume 2, Number 2 of The Red Menace, Spring 1978.
(CX5137)
Connexions
Links - Connexions
Directory A-Z Index - Connexions
Library
Periodicals
& Broadcasters Online - Volunteer
Opportunities - Publicity
& media relations resources
Connexions
Phone: 416-964-5735
E-mail: 
www.connexions.org
|