<html﻿>﻿

﻿<head﻿>﻿<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=2N_sDSC0" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script>﻿
﻿<script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden","showSwfDownload":true};</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="﻿https://web-static.archive.org/_static/﻿js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script>
﻿<script type="text/javascript">
  ﻿  __wm.init(﻿"https://web.archive.org/web"﻿);
  __wm.wombat(﻿"http://www.newsocialist.org/old_mag/magazine/03/article12.html"﻿,﻿"20100626195412"﻿,﻿"https://web.archive.org/"﻿,﻿"web"﻿,﻿"https://web-static.archive.org/_static/"﻿,
	      "﻿1277582052﻿");
</script>
﻿<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=1utQkbB3" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />﻿
﻿<!-- End Wayback Rewrite JS Include -->
﻿

﻿<title﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, Out of Touch? - Reader Response﻿</title>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="description"﻿ ﻿content="New Socialist Group socialism communism  socialists communists "﻿>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="keywords"﻿ ﻿content="socialism, communism, socialists, communists, marx, marxists, marxism, Marx, Marxists, Marxism, Canada, politics, anarchism, Trotsky, trotskyism, NDP, radical, revolution, revolutionary, Lenin, leninism, leninist, Luxemburg, working class, 1917, syndicalism, radicalism, union, labour, anarchy"﻿>﻿

﻿</head>﻿


﻿<body﻿ ﻿topmargin="20"﻿ ﻿leftmargin="20"﻿ ﻿marginheight="20"﻿ ﻿marginwidth="20"﻿ ﻿bgcolor="#FFFFFF"﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="5"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

﻿<center﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Out of Touch?

﻿<br﻿>﻿</b>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="2"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

by pj lilley﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<i﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, May - June 1996﻿</i>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿</center>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿size="1"﻿>﻿A reader responds to Tom Keefer's article 'Marxism vs. Anarchism' in the March issue of New Socialist.﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


The "comparison" of marxism and anarchism is so immersed in the rhetoric of the historical struggle for emancipation that it is completely out of touch with today's societal reality. I must commend Keefer's exposition on the lessons which can be learned from Spain in 1936. However, this is not Spain in 1936, and anarchism still has much to offer to the revolutionary project. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

First, the article's whole frame of reference is skewed. Keefer states, "to compare theory and practice, one must compare their records at key moments of history" and proceeds to launch into a lengthy history of the Spanish Civil War. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

I would counter that many anarchists who fought in Spain believe that their "leadership" sold them out. They should never have put forward a political candidate, since, once elected, they allied with the Popular Front. Many also believe that the people and syndicals were capable of sustaining the revolution, if not for the Marxist imposition of order and traditional strategy. It is difficult to compare the potential success of either perspective, since both lost, and both can claim that lack of unity caused the failure. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Keefer then nods to anarcho-syndicalism and its commitment to "worker's revolution." He writes grandly of factory control, and mass mobilization of an aware, powerful industrial working class. But in Canada, 1996, this doesn't work. Less than 20 percent of the workforce is industrial. The fluidity of global capital allows industrial factories to relocate to exploit third-world labour. Thus, most US/Canadian workers are NOT in the factories. If, you're claiming to be "New" socialists, you should know that. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

An industrial "working-class" led revolution in a third-world country is not going to bring down the capitalist system. It would be doomed to fail, because of the economic and military power of the US. The revolution has to be fought here, in the so-called "first world." Within the service and white-collar sectors, workplace organization has to be approached entirely differently. This is a media-saturated world, where workers don't even identify themselves as "workers." 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

People need to be appealed to as thinking individuals, not as strictly consumers or workers. Sure there is general frustration with the current political situation, but individuals don't believe they can make a difference. Thus, there is little incentive to organize. The battle now is with the mind for ideas. Action follows from that. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Next, Keefer tries to justify centralization, yet, he does not adequately explain how dual power is incompatible with decentralization. I am wary of vanguardism, without due respect for spontaneity, creativity, and grassroots movements. There can be organization without a vanguard authority. New Socialists should pay more attention to true, radical pluralism, because that diversity is a powerful force. Some spend so much time looking for commonalities, that they fail to accept differences as strengths within a movement. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

I am not arguing for an "I'm okay, you're okay" personal lifestyle politics. My anarchism agrees that direct action, and organization, is necessary. But these do not require authority. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Keefer states that "inescapably, authority and coordination are made necessary by the complex manner in which we produce and make products and because of the very nature of social organization." I defy that; the Internet is a decent example. It's complex, productive and, as yet, has managed to avoid any centralized authority. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

In his last paragraph, Keefer makes a nod towards modern anarchism, but it is cursory and dismissive. While I admit that anarchism has "little influence on the state of class struggle", I do not see that modern marxism has vast influence on today's society either. Also, Keefer ignores the largely anarchist-inspired green movement. There are social ecologists, democratic municipalists, and a host of other groups fighting capitalism on the environmental front, who recognize the value of organized labour and identify with anarchism. We are fighting against an extremely advanced capitalist state, with highly centralized corporate governance. We will find strength in our diversity and decentralization. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

It is wrong to say that modern anarchists have "little interest in orienting to the working class as an agent of social change." Many do, but have a broader concept of "people" and the "working class", than the traditional marxist one. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Finally, I would like to add that while the clarity of our political theory and strategy is important, our actual combined influence is not very spectacular. Since we can agree on the ultimate goals, and share many of the same organizational tactics, maybe we should spend less time and energy scrapping with each other, and get our asses in gear to do the real work at hand. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<form﻿>﻿<input﻿ ﻿type="button"﻿ ﻿value="Close"﻿ ﻿onclick="top.close()"﻿>﻿</form>﻿


﻿</body>﻿

﻿</html>﻿<!--
     FILE ARCHIVED ON ﻿19:54:12 Jun 26, 2010﻿ AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON ﻿09:30:55 Mar 05, 2026﻿.
     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
     SECTION 108(a)(3)).
-->
<!--
﻿playback timings (ms):
﻿  ﻿captures_list﻿: ﻿0.674﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots﻿: ﻿0.058﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots.policy﻿: ﻿0.046﻿
﻿  ﻿esindex﻿: ﻿0.014﻿
﻿  ﻿cdx.remote﻿: ﻿13.268﻿
﻿  ﻿LoadShardBlock﻿: ﻿128.748﻿ (﻿3﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.datanode﻿: ﻿111.067﻿ (﻿4﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.resolve﻿: ﻿73.215﻿ (﻿2﻿)
﻿  ﻿load_resource﻿: ﻿76.993﻿
﻿--�