Read on Twitter
@PoliticalEdProj So I finished the Draper reading for #PEP , read some critical literature and have some thoughts on this idea of "socialism from below". New to Draper, so looking for anyone who can clear up any misconceptions in the points below! But here we go:
1) Draper's amalgam: Draper tries to force an eclectic variety of socialisms into his category of "socialism from above" and I'm not sure he succeeds. For example, Draper considers Debs as advocating for "socialism from below."
However, Debs' brand of socialism was inspired by Kautsky and the SPD politics, which Draper later brands "socialism from above". Meanwhile, the Owenites would seem to fulfill many of the conditions of "socialism from below" (a centre with unions, co-ops etc, formed around it)
But Draper is insistent that the Owenites were a representation of "socialism from above".
2)Draper's Binary: Draper perhaps draws too firm a line between "socialism from below" and "socialism from above". "Socialism from above" is necessarily dependent on support from below, while "socialism from below" is dependant on coordination from above.
Draper's position on Castro and Mao appears clear, but he gives no indication of whether the Soviet Revolution at its inception was grounded in "socialism from below". This leaves us at something of a disadvantage in terms of understanding the difference between the Two Souls.
Aside from a general opposition to top-down structures, and an emphasis on building power bottom-up (a theme one can also find in the work of some of the thinkers Draper criticises) we are left with no real way to identify when something is "from above" or "from below".
This leads me to question whether there is genuinely any real opposition between the Two Souls of Socialism. Perhaps the matter is better characterised not as two, mutually exclusive souls, but rather as a contradiction within the singular Soul of Socialism.
Maoists argue that top-down power and bottom-up power are in contention, but complimentary. That is to say "socialism from above" requires "socialism from below", and vice versa. Each is needed to suit certain material conditions and they work in a cycle of self-correction.
Lenin stated that those who know the reality of socialist struggle considered: "... all this talk about "from above" or "from below" as ridiculous nonsense, something like discussing whether a man's left leg or right arm is of greater use to him." This logic leads me to point 3.
3)Draper as an idealist: If we understand socialism as the historical period of transition from capitalism to communism, it seems constrictive and idealistic to demand a universal uniformity in transition.
Different places have different material conditions that make them more or less suited to different varieties of socialism. Some conditions might call for a top-down approach (with crucial support from below) and we should not condemn such efforts as the "wrong" socialism.
Draper's premature opposition to Cuba is perhaps evidence of the dangers of this mode of thought. We must be careful not to moralise too keenly about a particular brand of socialism, and risk further segmenting an already weakened Left.
The evolution of feudalism to capitalism took many different forms according to the material conditions in which it arose. We should expect, and allow for, a degree of variety in transitioning to socialism. In this respect, Draper's "Two Souls" may be of limited use.
This leads into my last hesitation:
4) Draper as a Western Intellectual. From my readings, comrades engaged in violent class struggle (civil war, coups, etc) in peripheral countries find Draper's conclusions absurd. Especially existing Maoist groups engaged in brutal class war.
4) Draper as a Western Intellectual. From my readings, comrades engaged in violent class struggle (civil war, coups, etc) in peripheral countries find Draper's conclusions absurd. Especially existing Maoist groups engaged in brutal class war.
How are they to enjoy "socialism from below" when they are being attacked by superior military forces, sanctioned and driven from their land? Are we to react to their defiance of the doctrine of "socialism from below" as a failure?
As Marxists, we recognise the universality of class struggle, but I think we should refrain from any attempt to universalise a particular method of self-emancipation.
The central contradiction at the heart of Draper's work is that if we prescribe and promote rigid adherence to a certain means of self-emancipation, then in a sense, it is no longer really SELF-emancipation. Rather it is emancipation by OUR (western) standard.
For me, a key condition of self-emancipation, is respecting the autonomy of the working class of each nation, in deciding what approach best suits their material conditions (whether this means a top-down structure, a bottom-up structure or something that transcends the duality.
To end with a question then: does a Draper-like adherence to "socialism from below" allow for true, universal self-emancipation? Or is it best approached as one particular path of many, perhaps best suited to developed nations?
