•

Why do people attach themselves ("adhere') to a particular branch of radical ideology and defend it against all criticism, even to the point of absurdity? Why does a large part of our radical thought find utterance in doctrinal catch-phrases borrowed from the 19th century (anarchism, marxism, populism) or, what amounts to the same thing from underdeveloped regions (leninism, maoism)? Why do partial critiques (anti-nuclear, syndicalism, feminism, pacif icism) repeatedly pass themselves off as complete? Is today's anti-authoritarian movement the vanguard of tomorrow's newly-revised and stronger-than-ever (rationalized, non-discriminatory) totalitarian state?

Originally, of course, I had hoped to answer all these questions, and more, in the space of this editor's introduction. Realistically though, I shall limit myself to asking them in some detail, and hinting at a few answers. It is my hope that some of you might be provoked to submit articles on these and similar themes— Black Rose exists not to rehash old ideas but to encourage new thought. We look for the innovative and the outrageous.

It is fairly common, although not universally accepted, to argue that the trade union struggles (approximately 1880 to 1940 in North. America) did not in any major way oppose the growth and domination of the capitalist class. Rather, in this view, the union movement was instrumental in making the change from 19th century (industrial, nationalist, competitive) capitalism to 20th century (multi-national, monopolist) capitalism—trade unionism as the midwife of consumerism. (This is not an argument about the participant's consciousness, but about the function of their activity.)

There are many possible ways to support this contention (expansion of domestic markets, enforcing labor discipline in the factories, etc.); my main concern is to ask whether this dynamic (radical consciousness coupled with pre-coopted activity) is a feature of contemporary struggles—are we unknowingly ushering in a new era of domination by helping capital/ state/bureaucracy to modernize itself? Is, for example, formal racial and sexual equality a necessary precondition for continued growth of consumer society? If yes, then those radicals who uncritically support "progressive" or "liberal" anti-racist or anti-sexist struggles without making important distinctions are doing themselves a serious disservice, acting to preserve the system in spite of their good intentions. To quote the somewhat stilted language of Solidarity for Social Revolution (123 Latham Road, E.6, London, England. Issue #6, Dec. 78-Jan. 79):

Capitalism, in order to survive, is now developing the means of ending oppression on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation, because the characteristic sex designations up to this stage of capitalist development increasingly conflict with the needs of the economy... But it is important to distinguish between the actions of sections of the bourgeoisie to modernize by internally developing the existing market (through encouraging a new consumption originating in a growing dissatisfaction with existing sexual life) and the self-conscious revolutionary movement itself. .[We have] always struggled to be consciously revolutionary rather than an ideological instrument of economic reform.

The pamphlet LIP and the Self-managed Counter-revolution (available from Black and Red, Box 9546, Detroit, MI 48202) makes a similar point. Watch factory employees who took over the factory and ran it themselves, (buying raw materials, organizing their own work and paychecks, selling the watches through various channels), rather than liberating themselves from capitalist misery merely collectivized it, changed its form. By doing away with their bosses, but not with the capitalist system, they only abolished local symbols, and incorporated themselves more firmly in the system of global irrationality, as a "collective capitalist." Those who argue that the LIP workers achieved "all that was possible given contemporary reality," are asking (and answering) the wrong questions. Traditional anarcho-syndicalism, and its contemporary heirs, the movement for "self-management", have seen the overthrow of domination as a question only of form and only at a local level —the Spanish revolutionaries in 1936 did not abolish the state, but only collectivized their factories. It is necessary to see beyond one's own daily affairs, to understand the workings (and changing) of the entire society, and thus abolish your own misery.

Failing to understand this, we are stuck in any number of self-defeating activities. Those in the anti-nuclear movement, for example, whose practice does not exceed opposition to nuclear power (regardless of tactical preferences), may in fact be acting to preserve or strengthen the energy monopolies, rather than weakening or abolishing them. Assuming we are correct when we say solar is more rational than nuclear, then doesn't our demand for the use of renewable energy sources boil down to helping them preserve and extend their power by putting it on a more dependable and less destructive and controversial basis? It is easy to envisage a national solar energy "authority" powered by gigantic collectors and orbiting energy satellites, which we will have helped bring into being Theories about the liberatory potential of certain technologies don't guarantee a liberatory actuality.

This situation, where we plan our activities based upon theoretical notions which don't make sense, is in part a hangover from 19th century (and earlier) concepts about science and knowledge. Scientists such as Gallileo and Darwin attempted to discover the fixed laws whereby natural events could be comprehended, predicted, and controlled. Their success is arguable. The difficulty arises when we search for the "laws" of human behavior, which was the project of the founders of social science. For better or for worse, human beings, singly and in groups, do not behave according to laws, either those of history, or of the temporal state; many of the significant events in revolutionary history happened contrary to the predictions and understandings of social scientists. Karl Marx (the originator of "scientific socialism") attempted to criticize this approach, but ultimately could not escape these types of errors—Marxists search for the "primary contradiction", the button which when properly pushed, will start in motion the overhaul of all of society. Other groups of radicals (anarchists, feminists, pacifists) criticize Marxism, not for looking for a button, but for choosing the wrong one. This mechanical model of society and the literal machines we use every day, both stem from a type of thinking that was prevalent just before and during the Industrial Revolution; without going into great detail, I think it's safe to say that advanced contemporary science has rejected this point of view. Computers, sub-atomic physics, and ecological science are all based, not on a concept where one aspect or component plays a dominant role, but where inter-relationships between parts are studied and/or arranged to achieve a desired end. I think it's possible and desirable for us to base our radical theory on a similar understanding of society as an evolving system of daily activities— some times in an institutional context, full of subtlety and inter-dependancewithout embracing anti-intellectualism or a do-your-own-thing/anything goes attitude. Let me end with one last example: Recently friends of this magazine attended a leftist rally which was to protest the deportation of Iranian students. When they displayed placards critical of Carter, Khomeini, and the Shah, they were asked to leave by the rally organizers, who said the rally was pro-Iranian and therefore pro-Khomeini. To paint the issues in this case as a choice between Khomeini and Shah/Carter or in general, to demand that I take sides in a confrontation between two groups who are contending for state power is to ask me to suppress critical judgement, indeed to suppress thought, and enlist in an army, to join a machine. Radicalism lies elsewhere.

—Charlie Gamble

*The title of this essay is a quote from The Morning of a Machine Gun, a volume of prose and poetry by Franklin Rosemont. (Surrealist Editions, Chicago. 1968)