Revolutionary practice and prefigurative politics: A clarification and defense

Recent years have seen a growth in movements like Zapatismo, 21st Century Socialism, the Movement of the Squares, Occupy, and others who combine commitments to a radical conception of democracy, human emancipation, and what is sometimes called “prefigurative politics.” Prefigurative politics is discussed among the anarchists prominent in Occupy (Bray, 2013; Graeber, 2009, 2013; Maeckelbergh, 2011, 2012; van der Sande, Sitrin, & Azzellini, 2014; Yates, 2015; 2015); Zapatismo and other Latin American social movements (Holloway, 2010; Sitrin, 2012; Zibechi, 2012); and anarchist and syndicalist organizations (Ness, 2014); autonomist Marxists (Holloway, 2010; Negri, 2009); theorists of 21st Century Socialism (Lebowitz, 2010, 2010; Mészáros, 1995) and even some progressive Trotskyists (Swain, 2015). The aim of this article was to develop three arguments for the necessity of prefigurative politics for bringing about the kind of free and democratic socialist society envisioned by many of the aforementioned groups and thinkers, on the basis of Karl Marx's theory of practice.1 These three arguments address the importance of prefigurative politics for radically free and democratic social change. Prefigurative politics is important for developing (a) revolutionary subjects with the powers and capacities needed to organize a radically free and democratic society; (b) revolutionary subjects with the required needs and motivations to work to bring such a society about; and (b) this sort of socialist consciousness. This article shows how certain components of Marx's thought are relevant and interesting to the theory and practice of radical democratic movements today, showing non-Marxist radical thinkers how Marx's theory of practice can help to make sense of and contribute to the important topic of prefigurative politics, and thereby helping to bring this aspect of Marx's thought into dialogue with some related radical democratic and anarchist thought. In fact, since I believe the original anarchist arguments for prefigurative politics spring from a theory of practice shared by Marx and Bakunin (Schmidt & van der Walt, 2009),2 I contend that this offers a potentially fruitful way of bringing Marxism and anarchism into, if not convergence, at least closer contact (Franks, 2012, Ness, 2014; Prichard, & Worth, 2016). Prefigurative politics is a key point of disagreement between anarchists and many Marxists, going back to debates in the First International (see Eckhardt, 2016), but casting it as a difference between Marxism and anarchism in general is misleading in light of the strategic varieties of Marxism, some of which embrace it (Choat, 2016). If its argument succeeds, this article shows that prefigurative politics has support not only in anarchist ideas but in Marxist thought as well, which suggests that a fruitful dialogue between anarchist and Marxist ideas is worthwhile. The structure of the article is as follows. It begins (section 2) with an overview of Marx's theory of practice (sometimes written “praxis”3) through an analysis of his conception of human powers, needs, and consciousness, and of how they interact in human activity. Next, I link this conception of practice to the idea of prefigurative politics, distinguishing in section 3 three different senses of prefiguration that are potentially relevant for my discussion. I explain my defense of a narrower, strategic conception of prefigurative politics, focusing on specific organizational structures. I go on to argue in section 4 that, on the already-developed theory of practice, prefigurative politics in this narrower sense is crucial for bringing about a free and democratic socialist society. Finally, section 5 defends my position against some prominent criticisms of prefigurative politics. Marx thinks about practice in terms of the development and reciprocal determination of human powers (Kräfte) and needs (Bedürfnisse). A power here is defined loosely as an ability or capacity, and more precisely, as a person's real possibility to do or to be (Ollman, 1971, ch. 3; Raekstad, 2015, 2016). This is a complex consisting of two things. First, an internal power consisting of whatever internal capacities a person needs for her to do something. Second, a context or set of conditions that enable or preclude the exercise of these internal powers. To have a power is to have both the requisite external context and to have the required internal powers to take advantage of them (see Raekstad, 2015, section 1). Human beings exercise their individual and social powers in order to meet their needs, and in so doing continuously develop and determine their powers and needs in different ways. For instance, if we exercise our powers to practice playing an instrument, our powers to play that instrument will increase; not doing so will result in those powers gradually deteriorating. Since human powers are continually determined through humans’ life-activity, and since different societies and historical periods structure this life-activity differently, humans’ powers vary across social and historical contexts. Hunger is hunger, but the hunger gratified by cooked meat eaten with a knife and fork is a different hunger from that which bolts down raw meat with the aid of hand, nail and tooth. . . . The object of art—like every other product—creates a public which is sensitive to art and enjoys beauty. (Marx, 1992, p. 92; see also pp. 353–354 and 391) In other words, the ways in which we satisfy our needs by exercising our powers in turn affects those needs, in an ongoing process (Raekstad, 2015).4 Conscious life activity directly distinguishes man from animal life activity. Only because of that is he a species-being. . . . Only because of that is his activity free activity. (Marx, 1992, p. 328) It is true that animals also produce. They build nests and dwellings, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce one-sidedly, while man produces universally; they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need. (Marx, 1992, p. 329) Consciousness enables human beings to reflect on, deliberate on, direct, and alter that activity as needed. It enables them to produce universally, as opposed to merely the benefits of their own and those close to them, and to produce even when they are free from immediate physical needs—such as the push of simple, instinctual impulses. For Marx, this is associated with two things that are important for thinking about social change. It is part of his explanation for the greater developmental plasticity of human beings as opposed to other animals. Unlike other animals, human beings can consciously set their own standards or yardsticks for their behavior to adhere to, critically reflect on them, and alter them in response to their needs and interests. This, in turn, relates to an explanation for human beings’ greater behavioral variation across different natural, social, and historical contexts. Different contexts imply different standards, yardsticks, etc. that need to be met in order to achieve our needs and interests, as as the and of those needs and a the standards and yardsticks of human will to be to their needs and not in a or by human beings exercising their powers of consciousness. This is for and from Marx's thinking about revolutionary For Marx, as we will revolutionary the development of revolutionary subjects with the powers, needs, and consciousness. subjects need the powers to bring about a free and democratic socialist and to organize and in ways that are free and democratic in They a real need to do they need the that it for them to and such a society. I will argue that developing these capacities prefigurative To make this it is to what prefigurative politics in the context of this senses of prefiguration need to be The was by the The of the are sometimes with the of the idea to as prefigurative politics. In its prefiguration is a of it is real and historical which that is also real and p. this to be to organizations to in the some of what they to in a are crucial First, to in this sense is not to do it or to to do For to not that to the as or that consciously and what for a revolutionary to the society it to bring about is for it consciously and to aim for that of society as a and to this aim to structure the way it in the Second, is prefigurative in the sense is determined only are to that only has and Since it is to and since prefiguration is from the and of the doing the prefiguration in this sense not to a social and or The of what is called prefigurative politics in the to the of the and only a the to be to this sort of politics Eckhardt, 2016). society of the be other the of the with which the will have have to to that that as close as we to our can we an and free society to from an The as the of the human society of the is required in the here and to our of freedom and and and in pp. The idea is in the of the to the structure of the society the of the p. and in the International commitments to, in the of their a society the of the are two ways in which this to prefigurative politics is today, of which is with a society the of the the sense of prefiguration I here to a strategic to which a part of revolutionary socialist is to develop organizations that of and that the society is to to be a if what a society will like in how can it be it in Since prefigurative politics, in this that the of the be to some sort of of a prefigurative politics also the of and their through and as prefigurative be and 2015, p. This idea is in the we The society envisioned by these anarchists 2015; & van der Walt, is the or in which of and society from the to a of democratic the of and and in a different not to need. It is that this conception of a society is to that of Marx (Raekstad, 2015, 2016). The to prefigurative politics can be to the sense of as discussed by among it an or that of social and human that are p. The of and human that about is the on of and of the In to are two of between the and senses that need to be historical and In the the structure of their democratic the organizational that of society. anarchists the in They anarchists to the in of their . . . anarchists their own . . . In the prefigurative and and in and and they not with p. The from the structure of revolutionary organizations to of life and with from in such way that a to prefigurative politics our and can A of prefiguration on and and revolutionary organizations into with a of prefigurative politics on how revolutionary organizations are the of a revolutionary to the necessity of social through organizations as the historical anarchist organizations the kind of to prefigurative politics can be both as a strategic position of its own and as in since my here is about a strategic for organizations and the is the more for my Since this is and the and is in my fruitful for a of for social movements this article on arguments for prefigurative politics in the prefigurative politics is defined here as the strategic to developing revolutionary organizations that the of and that a society to This to see that prominent of prefigurative politics not to the sense that it to or to a of its own the prefigurative politics some that to prefigurative such as social and but a of others are in with a to For instance, the of and in the of in and the of in are different and potentially prefigurative in some key strategic in anarchism take between and anarchist the or syndicalist are to a but their different are prefigurative in are different with 21st Century Socialism in by theory of which developing a of and to the of the of the and The sense of prefigurative politics here is a strategic and it not to a revolutionary on its own or to other the of prefigurative politics is that the between and is in order to achieve revolutionary . . . such an the of historical to by way of a socialist are not to the of to the in which such and which them to . . . . . . these from the to the between the revolutionary process and its a which in the of and the revolutionary This is not a of what for the of but because arguments about the revolutionary p. a strategic conception need not and on and when For instance, many not anarchists powers for to a from by internal or for the and their to prefigurative (a) such powers to be or the in general social and (b) organizations that they argue do not such like powers on the of revolutionary and and The section three arguments for this strategic Socialism, for many Marxists and anarchists is a of freedom as activity. Since human beings are social animals, this that the is of The of by to a of powers, and by the process and by a of and activity in the and in life more A on Marx's will do with these powers and enable by society such that it is by and and by of democratic the of and to need. This in turn the way that work is and Marx's conception for its strategic the social in terms of which to the conditions of their and and their of the and of the to the of the as a p. through both and both to see as both and and they a develop to to exercise p. revolutionary practice needs to (a) the and (b) the envisioned social change. The is only if the organizations and movements that (a) in developing powers, needs, and in the this prefigurative politics is not at opposed to the against and the it is a about how this needs to be in order in bringing about a free and democratic socialist society. To develop these powers, needs, and that the organizational in the to a the social for in a free and democratic socialist society. The for this is free and democratic and do not in the or It is if not to how to organize in a free and democratic way if has of in such it is to the need to in such a way if have like and it can be for to believe it is even in the of of Prefigurative practice can and it can do so in fact, a The importance of prefigurative practice is three needs and consciousness. Marx's conception of revolutionary practice is on a of the that it is to human beings and society by into power the or and them This that is to the This society into two of which is to Marx thinks is (Marx, 1992, p. Marx the of this in the of society; by his of the is human or social (Marx, 1992, pp. Marx is not the as an of revolutionary practice but the ideas that such a for the on a of this consciousness, and for the of the the of on a is an which can only take in a a this is not only because the be in other but also because the it can only in a in of the of and to society (Marx, & pp. that in order to work their own . . . they will have to through through a of both and (Marx, p. Marx is that revolutionary are not for but also for their in the way to enable them to do This article that part of this of human beings developing revolutionary subjects with the powers, needs, and to a free and democratic socialist and that this in turn organizational that that society. It is in this that we Marx's on of the be by the (Marx, & p. This is in such as of (Lebowitz, 2012, ch. Marx, that is to develop that to while (Lebowitz, 2012, p. This is because in it is to build those through which are to develop their capacities and make to a (Lebowitz, 2012, p. that in Latin American movements an which is to the of the is by the the 2012, pp. This the argument for prefigurative revolutionary a free and democratic society with the powers to organize and others in free and democratic ways. These powers be down by an to the they be by the through their The organizational in the to a the social for in a free and democratic socialist because the only way for to develop their powers and capacities for is through of and of doing if socialist movements to the of the society in of and they will be to a free and democratic socialist because the will not have the powers to organize in these ways. organizations on a Marxist of practice, be to a socialist their structure that their the powers to do their immediate aim is etc. But at the they a need for what as a has an . . . are for between which in turn has society as its is for The of man is not a it is a and the of man from their (Marx, 1992, p. For the anarchist of our into developing of process that of that of The was in a kind of that freedom is it was to the American that a truly democratic society was through But it was to The of a or two a only by and can about what politics, or for that human be p. . . . is as the and that human beings produce about the social and in which they as they and interact with this In other words, is by about social through social & p. This suggests argument for prefigurative a free and democratic society of the sort by an not only with the powers to organize it but who the need to do and free and democratic social are and of the of these is that to a radical need for the and that they radical needs are defined as needs that the of the social in which they & p. These needs to such things not only in their but in other of social life as well, such as their and a the and powers and needs in and through revolutionary the social structure they are part of and the to & p. that the argument here is not that only prefigurative organizations and movements can the of freedom and democracy, or that only they can radical the argument is that prefigurative organizations and movements are to be the at doing organizations and movements that to the and they aim for in an socialist society will not only to develop revolutionary subjects with the powers to bring about such a society; they will also be at developing revolutionary subjects with the needs and motivations to bring it such a their it to be and it as a real They will not what or be which need to be in that not what these and are like in they will not be to believe it is a to work The of of of is at directly with the activity and the of of real . . . are the of their that as they are by a development of their and of the to these . . . Consciousness can be and the of is their & p. I that this is not about the between practice and it the of their Marx and here that can be development of that is from and This is important because it that developing a radical free and democratic socialist the and development of the of practice of which that is This shows a way in which prefigurative practice is important in a Marxist conception of revolutionary about an socialist society revolutionary subjects with the revolutionary consciousness. Consciousness of free and democratic of and which is for an socialist can develop only on the basis of and such and democratic of and be in some way in order to be that in order for to develop of them in a only organizations and movements that the free and democratic of and they to see in a socialist society will be to develop the that is to bring such a society real of a only by and has the power to about what politics . . . be p. I contend that this point can be to the of prefigurative politics more has free and democratic of and seen that they and them, that such things are and about how it be to social life so it the and of and the This is to what in a different called of the such a has is back from p. I on, I argue against that is by about the of consciousness. not the development of human powers and needs to a development or of consciousness, or the for the is from but some important things are if is we about the of revolutionary A social subjects with the powers and It who can organize in free and democratic who can organize others in such who have the and to and and who a real need to in these ways in the that society. the sense of and so not for of these things. of that will with the of how to do this and consciously that we to have and other those we but this is different from such things. To to be to organize and others in certain ways is different from to do to do so A for an of freedom and in the is different from a for the kind of freedom and has Consciousness is an important part of revolutionary practice, but it is important part among others which not be to, or in This section to three prominent criticisms which are sometimes against of prefigurative politics. First, it is sometimes thought that of of to a of prefigurative politics in that and is for with of the and in societies 2012, ch. This not to a of prefigurative politics in If it is it that least some of are or for complex which that such of be for in the and not be in it only that certain organizational are and It not argue that organizational not that be and in a only that of these be in Second, is the argument that, in words, prefigurative politics and the of them in the in and of p. In this argument is by that prefigurative organizations have to or to of and they have to play in 2015, p. 2015, pp. The response to make here is that prefigurative politics, in the sense of a strategic to developing revolutionary organizations that the of and that will be in a not For are of democratic and 21st Century Socialism (Lebowitz, 2010; Mészáros, combine some commitments to prefigurative politics with to are important debates about these are the and they will to a free and democratic socialist society. and others these on the that in will to the prefigurative organizations that to work with them, but that is a that is the of this The important point here is that these that is between a strategic to prefigurative politics and a of different to with The other response to argument is that it is prefigurative organizations like the of the the and the have and organizations with in the or even the of the of of and they have for their in a of ways & van der Walt, In fact, to of the revolutionary was pp. two of the more of like a to a free and democratic and are of prefigurative in the sense here and organizations that have to organize even the a to prefigurative politics in the sense here not the of organizations of is argument that prefigurative politics is with the required for defense against and pp. pp. it is that prefigurative politics as here is not with of for But it is the in light of The aforementioned continuously the power of the and in the among other to to the First The have in with the and have an of and to help them to and support other Finally, in to and they society in a of different and public and and and the while prefiguration & 2016). In the the and the with anarchist in of of the in the of the and the criticisms of the This to many of their to the that was and the to the 2009, ch. In the historical to shows that is between with the of and defense and prefigurative politics. If the argument is prefigurative politics in a narrower, strategic sense is a of revolutionary not for anarchists and Marxists but for a of radical democratic movements and as the other hand, if prefigurative politics in this sense is or we need to what it is and the arguments that can be for the idea is and the it by its which more and the discussion. For those who to prefigurative I at least to have a of what it to and the that can be for I make In every of a socialist power the the result was social or a In they have to bring about the kind of radically free and democratic society that their this of the kind of socialist society that Marx and others the of how can this from Prefigurative politics offers an to this that is in a theory of practice and that has some historical to If this argument is a of for a free and democratic socialist society take the need for prefigurative politics. This a of about how to about prefigurative politics in about the ways of prefigurative about how to interact with other and These are important and they greater they to This article is the result of a of work I doing as a and has from of from many different I like to and for on the and that this article is have at the at the of in the in both and the International on in the in and the Marx in I like to the at these and for their and is a at the of on in democracy, and how to also has specific in the of Marxism, and