There Is No Alternative!?

The problem with this argument is that, as most anti-capitalists read it, it isn’t an argument at all. Point (3), which is TINA, doesn’t follow from the rest, at least if we have the usual understanding of the claim that people are greedy. What instead follows from these observations is that any social system needs to recognize that human beings want desirable living conditions and material well-being and have energy and insight with which to pursue these—and that they will do so. 

To get positive social outcomes —say, classlessness—a social system must provide means for people to advance their own possibilities using their own energies and insights. It must also ensure that when people pursue their well being, the result will be increasing solidarity, rather than increasing competitiveness and division. 

The claim that people are greedy provides no reason to think this is impossible. It doesn’t put up a roadblock to revolution (which would be TINA), but it instead says, quite reasonably, show me what you have to offer that lets people improve their lives, but that also generates just outcomes.  

When advocates for a better world encounter opponents, we should not immediately assume stunted brains or malignant values. It can be that they have an honest difference of opinion about what can be accomplished. It is important for us to always make our case as best we can as an important antidote to being sectarian, a trap we can all easily fall into. 

So, how do we attain this new world? 

Perhaps the biggest current strategic debate is between Leninists and non-Leninists. The best Leninist will say, “I seek classlessness, participatory democracy, an end to patriarchy, and an end to racism that still allows enriched cultural diversity.” The best anti-Leninist will say the same thing. Both will mean it. So far, there is no difference. 

The best Leninist will continue, “Leninist methods can be grossly abused with horrible outcomes. But we have no choice. We must find a way to use these methods (van- guardism, coordinatorism, heir- archies) if we are to win, but to constrain their tendencies to induce horrible results.”  

The best anti-Leninist, in contrast, will say, “It isn’t only that democratic centralism and manipulative mass politics foster coordinator class rule, political authoritarianism, patriarchy, and cultural homogenization. Leninist methods won’t attract support. Pragmatically, they are doomed to fail. To be credible, inspiring, and empowering, we need movements that embody the values, social relations, and structures of the new world we seek.”  

In this dispute, as in the face-off between seeking revolution and accepting capitalism as permanent, there can exist comparably enlightened humane motivations on both sides. To enter every exchange presupposing the worst is a breeding ground for continued sectarianism. 

There is no need to water down our feelings and our claims. But there is a need to communicate respectfully and present real arguments, not to just flail at one another.