Recently, the libertarian movement in Russia has developed a tendency to criticize his colleagues from the position of the correct revolutionary "," a truly proletarian principles "and" the true position of libertarian communism. " Moreover, such criticism is usually the last few years not engaged in active political activities. They assign themselves the role of censors and submitted the case so that comrades who spend most of their time to organize actions and other events dealing with something not very necessary and even harmful to the libertarian movement. In fact, perceptions ultra-internet-revolutionary theorists are not. This outlook is characteristic direction in the past, excessive abstraction, absolutisation ideological schemes and the rejection of the principle of historicism. Figuratively this position can be described as "revolutionary abstraction. In the early twentieth century in painting began to develop a trend whereby already should not seek to be represented by a real similarity between subjects with reality.A typical example of this genre are, for instance, some paintings by Malevich, in which instead of real human figures are depicted with their geometric shapes. But what is allowed in the painting, it is not permissible in the theory of libertarian communism. On the contrary, using the scientific methodology, the revolutionary theory should strive as much as possible to become closer to reality. For example, a number of modern texts, we consider the errors of this modern genre of theorizing - the revolutionary abstract. Abstract idea of internationalism The revolutionary abstract characteristic abstract idea of internationalism.A typical example of such an erroneous position is, for example, an article on 9 May - the defeat of the proletariat ", published earlier this year on the site www.avtonom.org . Moreover, the article was not written for the site of autonomous operation, but was overtaken as there would be a warning to other road users a "free site editors. Let careful reading in these samples "revolutionary theorising. "The exploiters and oppressors like to celebrate with fanfare on May 9 as the Day of Victory.Before thinking proletariat inevitably raises the question: was it a day of victory in his class? The Second World War was an imperialist war for the division of the world, a fight between a mafia gang, known as states, for the right to exploit the proletarians of the world. During the war two allied mafia gangs - the West and the Soviet "imperialism - won their competitors - the imperialists of Germany, Italy and Japan.Then the winners started fighting each other, and in the end of the Cold War, Western imperialists won SSSRovskih imperialists. Workers of all of the tens of millions died in this war for the interests of their enemies, and eventually left with nothing. " In addition to that of similar materials, blowing horrific primitivism, the authors of such articles dare to claim to originality and the special revolutionary.The most amazing thing that these articles are written by people with higher education, but to the level of such materials are still lower than the "historical materialism" Comrade Sharik, who read the correspondence with Engels, Kautsky, said that he disagreed with both, not realizing at a word of this correspondence. Without going into further discussion of the author of this remarkable article, you must pay attention to only one point, which lies at the basis of these arguments. The basis of the material "May 9 - The defeat of the proletariat" to be, supposedly "logically to the end" to continue the position of "proletarian internationalism".That is, if "the worker no fatherland", then how should behave "Soviet proletariat" after Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union? Nothing. Watch as a "cowardly imperialists" from Germany at war with "vile Soviet imperialists", wait for when they've killed each other, and then have a long life peacefully and happily. In this article we see the primitive schematic thought. Its author, uncritically took the theory of so-called "state capitalism", according to which the Soviet Union, "in reality" was a capitalist society, and more in bold strokes painted a picture of life, which never existed.The fact that workers' participation in WWII author of the article does not account. The fact that there is not only legal, but the actual ownership of the means of production in the USSR, the author does not take into account. The presence of the planned economy, which according to the principles of operation, different from the economies of Western countries, the author ignores. This is not the place to engage in polemics about the fact whether in the USSR "deformed workers' state", "state capitalism" or something else. The main thing that ponahvatavshis here and there various controversial theories, some comrades are eager to teach other comrades, eager to impart to them a "revolutionary", while enjoying a pathetic or extremely ambiguous, biased theorizing, born in polemical debates. No internationalism in the article about May 9 no, and says it is not about the defeat of the proletariat, in ignorance of the author, who wrote the article. "Legalists damned" The sense of reproach ultra theorists is that "the anarchists did not have to ask permission from the state (for example, serve a notice to local authorities for pickets, rallies, marches)."Anarchists should not cooperate with authoritarian groups" (for example, to go their separate column on May 1 along with the Communist Party). After all, the "Land of Anarchy" by this fall the golden tablets of the book Kropotkin and crashed to the floor. What we see here? Again - the same rule of "ultra-abstract" has nothing to do with the real situation, dealing with the principle.The principles are different - there are objective, formed in the process of actually socio-political practices, and there are principles for their own sake. During his long public activity the author of this article carried in the local authorities, probably not less than fifty notices. If it's "cooperation with the State", where the bonuses that I would have to get? Over the years, the activities of the author of this article has repeatedly engaged in "unauthorized" actions, and sometimes had their organizer.The conclusion of this can be done is simple - action should be legal or not, depending on the circumstances, and not according to principle. While some friends, elevate the principle of "nesoglashatelstva" an absolute, and while at this point of view, again present themselves as radical revolutionaries who burned up all the bridges and now they have come alone strikes-strikes, prison, hunger and terror.But the most hurtful for the libertarian movement, that these fellow radical revolutionaries usually are not, do not rob banks, do not burn bridges, and sit yourself at home and blissfully scribbling endless lists of comments and letters to strangers over the shares of the Damned legalists. " "Do not cooperate with trade unions. Another "point" of the revolutionary abstract art is not "cooperation" and "not support" the official trade unions.Modern Russian trade unions by type FNPR for many years occupied a compromising position. Any reasonable person, it is clear that FNPR to disperse, and Shmakov sent for reeducation of some Maoists in Sri Lanka or Colombia. However, the thesis of "noncooperation" proclaims as if extra-parliamentary life of contemporary Russia is replete with trade unions. In fact, the trade unions in contemporary public life of Russia did not play any role, do not perform their function of protecting the labor rights of workers, even within the parliamentary capitalist system.Trade union organizations that raise their head (and these can be counted on the fingers of one hand) were under great pressure from the owners, authorities and are rather the exception. Proclaim today the thesis of "not supporting" the union is the same as that demand the abolition of discrimination penguins in Antarctica by sex. With the same success could also claim the ban one-way traffic on the highways of Saturn or the immediate renaming Sea of Tranquility on the moon in the sea of the Fighters with opportunism. Our sverhrevolyutsionnye comrades demand that the workers immediately began working to create underground cell at the enterprises, immediately expelled "profkomychey" with businesses. Such requirements are announced in a situation where the working class divided, and spontaneous protests are local uncoordinated. Moreover, the saddest, that call to "immediately establish working revolutionary cell" people, who are or have never worked in the production of little or no work, people who have no ties with labor collectives and the little understood psychology of the working man. To support or not support the trade unions - must depend on the specific situation and the particular union. Unions are the only organizations that have direct access to employees. The Russian State in the 1990's, realizing the danger to themselves such associations actually neutralized the trade union movement in Russia, taking his thick wing.This does not mean that trade unions in general should be good or bad. Do not trust, do not be afraid, do not ask. Let us explain the strategy super-revolutionaries. "First, there should be no requests and petitions to the State" ( http://www.avtonom.org/node/12433 ). With this no one disputes. However, often it happens that employees of any regional company to announce a hunger strike or worthy of pity, or go to decisive action, but only against the local authorities and asked to "king" in Pikalevo pay attention to them.Yes, it's sad, but on the other side to whom they apply - to our online super revolutionaries? Internet revolutionaries, what exactly you can help workers? Give the right to read a book? Unfortunately, the workers have not yet eliminated the belief in "good uncle Putin, who, responding to such appeals, further legitimizes its power, gives hope, and until this stereotype has not been eliminated, we are forced to reckon with this.How can you destroy the "faith in the good king" in the mass consciousness? Only by promoting through direct contact with workers. There is a desperate, and there are angry. There are hard workers who rush to the riot in Mezhdurechensk, but there is weeping women pensioners, who are evicted from the "Khrushchev" in the street. But our internet revolutionaries did not conduct any work with those with any other. Well, let's fight with sealing buildings is "legalism" and "reformism". Where were you when I was a revolt in Pikalevo? Where were you when I was a revolt in Mezhdurechensk " In the Internet? Conclusion: before you have the gall to lecture workers, ask yourself what you can offer them, except the "correct theory"? The method of direct action Next."The struggle must be waged by direct action." That's right, just. Now go and explain it to the workers. "Shit, what? What the ... "- ask you some hard worker. Play it you will not. Why? Because you are to him no credibility. For him the authority - let profkomych, let ward heeler, consisting of "Fair Russia", but he sees it every day at work, and he really understands that he could help him. Supporters of the Revolutionary abstraction represent the situation as if "legalists damn, that is, those comrades who are with them do not always agree, are opposed to direct democracy, but it's not so. What is the difference between us - "damn legalists" and the super-revolutionaries? The fact that we are not an absolute individual theses, and apply them dialectically.For example, two years ago, this writer had to participate in actions to protect seventy pensioners in a provincial Russian cities.The woman lived a lifetime in a wooden house in the city center. The developer suggested that she return home apartment in a nine. The woman seemed to be, and agreed, but when it became clear that the apartment is still registered some people and documents on the property is not all right, refused to do so. As a result, the developer through the bailiff tried to throw her on the street, emphasizing the fact that she is supposedly living space. Equity strategy was that on the one hand every morning, activists and sympathizers lined up along the porch of the house in anticipation of bailiffs.On the other hand, we have advised pensioner appeal against court decision on the eviction, to buy time. Stock bore fruit in the end, the court forced the developer to provide another apartment, where a pensioner lives so far. If it was limited only by direct action, a pensioner probably would have been on the street. In a capitalist state, there are some decision-making mechanisms, which allowed use in individual cases.Need to be used to measure forces, it is reasonable and not caught up in bureaucratic nonsense. But fellow super-revolutionaries of the Internet do not understand. They absolutise ideas. The idea of direct action should be promoted in every possible way we need to explain to people that direct action is preferable than going through the corridors of governments. However, the rebuke of his comrades in the "betrayal of the foundations of anarchy" only for the fact that in some cases going to court was acceptable, not acceptable. Do not cooperate with authoritarian organizations In connection with this thesis of the advocates of revolutionary abstraction, again there is a significant inflection point. Any joint fact finding for one share with RCWP or the Communist Party, any fact that short-term arrangements with any communists treated them as a "betrayal of the foundations of anarchy." The sense of reproach in this case consists in the fact that - in collaboration with the Communists, even on short-term actions, you are thereby in the long run anyway help that they came to power in the future. "What we see here? Abstract. How downside, rejection of this cooperation? Isolationism. That is, refusing to short-term alliances with political associations, with whom there are some common ideological point of contact, the political movement inevitably dooms itself to isolation. All modern super-revolutionaries just the same and are in a situation of sectarian isolation and inactivity. Of course, such as "revolutionary inaction" is justified by the fact that "the time has not come yet," that "can not be a mass movement during the reaction, that "blunt Actionism only harm" that "is not to devise the right strategy" and so forth.However, such "revolutionaries" to forget one important point, which they have hollowed his forehead: Practice criterion of truth. Any socio-political activist, not dealing with the public ("authorized" or "unauthorized") activities over a year, inevitably turns into a super-Internet "revolutionary", by just saying - in the sectarian-dogmatist.Only through actual practice may develop the right strategy, but not in isolation from it. Let's look at the meaning of the word "cooperation". Any short-term agreement with a liberal or a communist state and the union certainly is cooperation. Of course, here we are not talking about participation in elections to state authorities.Clearly, in this framework, any cooperation to the organizations adhering to the principles of anti-state and anti-parliamentary, can not be. However, when we face at rallies or other events with one and the same theme of people, not a right, it is quite logical that they can and must sometimes negotiate. We are not talking about those who do not observe the agreement - this is another. But it is clear that, acting with one and the same subject, within the same activity should reach any agreements that enhance the interaction.The fact that such arrangements contribute to (or may not) coming to power in the future "authoritarian communists" question is too hypothetical. The meaning of libertarian communism is not to destroy government and to change the principles of its operation (based on direct democracy), so instead of no cooperation, boycott and any other "no", you should strongly promote their positions on an equal basis with others, and better than the others, rather than putting themselves in a situation of isolation. Findings In the revolutionary movement should not be the very division of labor on the intellectual and dumb.There should be such that one - have written articles and lectured, and others have done the action and called names theorists "boobs" and "Botany". Socio-political revolutionary activity - is, first, activity, secondly, the activity of a conscious and intelligent. Often, any action for sealing construction, for environmental theme, or forced recruitment criticized Internet revolutionaries in the sense, but it "does not improve the situation of workers."After all, we should go to the factory, handing out leaflets to strike, quickly create among the workers in underground cells" etc. One would like to say: Well, go and create! Worries about the fact that "you do not go to the workers," locked in subkulturschine "from time to time is announced not only the Internet revolutionaries, but also by the activists. The real cause of this concern is not that we are "divorced from the masses." We are part of the mass - students, young workers, intellectuals who had jobs.The real reason is that we have not yet a mass movement within all countries (or groups of countries) and the bulk of the workers we do not know. The real reason is not sufficient organization, the degree of consciousness and our formulation of a reasonable alternative. Internet theorists never tire of accusing the modern movement in the "subculture", "rave", a lack of stable attitudes, etc. However, they are sadly mistaken if they think that their flat accusatory articles, they will help raise awareness and overcome the "subculture" in motion. If they really were theorists, it would not be limited to the finding of obvious shortcomings.All internet whining they usually respond on the forums: "what do you specifically can offer?" "What are you specifically can help?" In reply, or silence or repetition of the same "truths" of the revolutionary abstraction. The super-revolutionaries of the Internet are very fond of philosophizing, comment, teach, write articles.It is not like the Internet revolutionaries: to organize the action, take a serious and long-term liability. It is like a super-Internet revolutionaries output all of the schemes, concepts, abstract ideas. It is not like Internet-revolutionaries, when they ask questions - what exactly they are going to replace the system of social division of labor? What specifically they want to achieve political hegemony in society, without which implementation of the ideals of libertarian communism? Why are natural product-sharing really progressive than cash? In view of supporters of the revolutionary abstract one, sometime in the next life, the revolution will come and so all happen by itself.It goes all ustakanitsya and installed in accordance with the ideals of anarchy. For Internet revolutionaries - they are sectarians-isolationists. They do not understand that apart from them, even in the extra-parliamentary sector policies are other forces which are not necessarily in favor of direct democracy.In a situation of revolutionary explosion libertarian movement would not be a one-on-one with the masses. There will be a lot of self-seekers and adventurers, who will try to inspire workers elusive goals. Their ideas are not revolutionary abstraction derives from the fact as it is, but from the fact as it should be. If it "should be" does not correspond to the actual state of things, a revolutionary abstract states that it is the wrong reality, give me another one. Revolutionary abstraction does not want to deal with this reality and furnishes wrong is his unwillingness to all sorts of excuses.Everyone who is still trying to act in accordance with circumstances, and not from abstract schemes, revolutionary abstraction labeled as "reformists", "legalists", "opportunists" and so on. In short, the "revolutionary" abstract art is "revolutionary" inactivity, which is rationally justified profound thesis. At best, this work - does not go beyond the Internet, but the activity is correct, true, in line with the ideals, though not bringing real benefit to the movement. S. PSThe article expresses the opinion only of its author.
