File: secH3.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 11.1-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: sarge
size: 16,544 kB
ctags: 544
sloc: makefile: 38
file content (6928 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 397,740 bytes
<html>
<head>
<title>H.3 What are the myths of state socialism?
</title>
</head>
<H1>H.3 What are the myths of state socialism?</H1>
<p>
Ask most people what socialism means and they will point to 
the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba and a host of other 
authoritarian, centralised and oppressive party dictatorships. 
These regimes have in common two things. Firstly, the claim 
that their rulers are Marxists or socialists. Secondly, that
they have successfully alienated millions of working class 
people from the very idea of socialism. Indeed, the supporters 
of capitalism simply had to describe the "socialist paradises" 
as they really were in order to put people off socialism. 
Moreover, the Stalinist regimes (and their various apologists 
and even "opponents", like the Trotskyists, who defended them 
as <i>"degenerated workers' states"</i>) let the bourgeoisie have an
easy time in dismissing all working-class demands and struggles 
as so many attempts to set up similar party dictatorships. 
<p>
The association of <i>"socialism"</i> or <i>"communism"</i> with these 
dictatorships has often made anarchists wary of calling 
themselves socialists or communists in case our ideas are 
associated with them. As Errico Malatesta argued in 1924:
<p><blockquote><i>
"I foresee the possibility that the communist anarchists
will gradually abandon the term 'communist': it is growing
in ambivalence and falling into disrepute as a result of
Russian 'communist' despotism. If the term is eventually
abandoned this will be a repetition of what happened with 
the word 'socialist.' We who, in Italy at least, were the
first champions of socialism and maintained and still maintain
that we are the true socialists in the broad and human sense
of the word, ended by abandoning the term to avoid confusion
with the many and various authoritarian and bourgeois 
deviations of socialism. Thus too we may have to abandon 
the term 'communist' for fear that our ideal of free human
solidarity will be confused with the avaricious despotism 
which has for some time triumphed in Russia and which one
party, inspired by the Russian example, seeks to impose 
worldwide."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 20]
</blockquote><p>
That, to a large degree happened, with anarchists simply 
calling themselves by that name, without adjectives, to avoid 
confusion. This, sadly, resulted in two problems. Firstly, 
it gave Marxists even more potential to portray anarchism as 
being primarily against the state and not as equally opposed
to capitalism, hierarchy and inequality (as we argue in 
<a href="secH2.html#sech24">section H.2.4</a>, 
anarchists have opposed the state as just one aspect 
of class society). Secondly, extreme right-wingers tried to 
appropriate the names <i>"libertarian"</i> and <i>"anarchist"</i> to describe 
their vision of extreme capitalism as <i>"anarchism,"</i> they claimed, 
was simply <i>"anti-government"</i> (see 
<a href="secFcon.html">section F</a> for discussion on 
why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist). To counter these 
distortions of anarchist ideas, many anarchists have recently 
re-appropriated the use of the words <i>"socialist"</i> and <i>"communist,"</i> 
although always in combination with the words <i>"anarchist"</i> and 
<i>"libertarian."</i>
<p>
Such combination of words is essential as the problem Malatesta
predicted still remains. If one thing can be claimed for the 
20th century, it is that it has seen the word <i>"socialism"</i> become 
narrowed and restricted into what anarchists call <i>"state 
socialism"</i> -- socialism created and run from above, by the 
state (i.e. by the state bureaucracy). This restriction of 
"socialism" has been supported by both Stalinist and Capitalist 
ruling elites, for their own reasons (the former to secure 
their own power and gain support by associating themselves
with socialist ideals, the latter by discrediting those ideas
by associating them with the horror of Stalinism). 
<p>
This means that anarchists and other libertarian socialists 
have a major task on their hands -- to reclaim the promise of
socialism from the distortions inflicted upon it by both its
enemies (Stalinists and capitalists) and its erstwhile and
self-proclaimed supporters (Social Democracy and its various
offspring like the Bolsheviks and its progeny like the 
Trotskyists). A key aspect of this process is a critique of
both the practice and ideology of Marxism and its various 
offshoots. Only by doing this can anarchists prove, to quote
Rocker, that <i>"<b>Socialism will be free, or it will not be at
all</b>."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 20]
<p>
Such a critique raises the problem of which forms of <i>"Marxism"</i> 
to discuss. There is an extremely diverse range of Marxist 

viewpoints and groups in existence. Indeed, the different
groups spend a lot of time indicating why all the others are 
not <i>"real"</i> Marxists (or Marxist-Leninists, or Trotskyists, 
and so on) and are just <i>"sects"</i> without <i>"real"</i> Marxist theory 
or ideas. This "diversity" is, of course, a major problem 
(and somewhat ironic, given that some Marxists like to insult 
anarchists by stating there are as many forms of anarchism as 
anarchists!). Equally, many Marxists go further than dismissing
specific groups. Some even totally reject other branches of 
their movement as being non-Marxist (for example, some Marxists 
dismiss Leninism as having little, or nothing, to do with what 
they consider the <i>"real"</i> Marxist tradition to be). This means 
that discussing Marxism can be difficult as Marxists can argue 
that our FAQ does not address the arguments of this or that 
Marxist thinker, group or tendency.
<p>
With this in mind, this section of the FAQ will concentrate on
the works of Marx and Engels (and so the movement they generated,
namely Social Democracy) as well as the Bolshevik tradition 
started by Lenin and continued (by and large) by Trotsky. These
are the core ideas (and the recognised authorities) of most 
Marxists and so latter derivations of these tendencies can be 
ignored (for example Maoism, Castroism and so on). It should 
also be noted that even this grouping will produce dissent 
as some Marxists argue that the Bolshevik tradition is
not part of Marxism. This perspective can be seen in the
<i>"impossiblist"</i> tradition of Marxism (e.g. the Socialist Party
of Great Britain and its sister parties) as well as in the
left/council communist tradition (e.g. in the work of such
Marxists as Anton Pannekoek and Paul Mattick). The arguments
for their positions are strong and well worth reading (indeed,
any honest analysis of Marxism and Leninism cannot help but
show important differences between the two). However, as 
the vast majority of Marxists today are also Leninists, we
have to reflect this in our FAQ (and, in general, we do so
by referring to "mainstream Marxists" as opposed to the
small minority of libertarian Marxists).
<p>
Another problem arises when we consider the differences not
only between Marxist tendencies, but also within a specific
tendency before and after its representatives seize power.
For example, <i>"there are . . . very different strains of 
Leninism . . . there's the Lenin of 1917, the Lenin of the
'April Theses' and <b>State and Revolution</b>. That's one Lenin.
And then there's the Lenin who took power and acted in ways
that are unrecognisable . . . compared with, say, the doctrines
of 'State and Revolution.' . . . this [is] not very hard to
explain. There's a big difference between the libertarian
doctrines of a person who is trying to associate himself 
with a mass popular movement to acquire power and the 
authoritarian power of somebody who's taken power and is
trying to consolidate it. . . that is true of Marx also.
There are competing strains in Marx."</i> [Noam Chomsky,
<b>Language and Politics</b>, p. 177]
<p>
As such, this section of our FAQ will try and draw out 
the contradictions within Marxism and indicate what 
aspects of the doctrine aided the development of the 
"second" Lenin. The seeds from which authoritarianism 
grew post-October 1917 existed from the start. Anarchists 
agree with Noam Chomsky when he stated that he considered
it <i>"characteristic and unfortunate that the lesson that 
was drawn from Marx and Lenin for the later period was 
the authoritarian lesson. That is, it's the authoritarian 
power of the vanguard party and destruction of all popular 
forums in the interests of the masses. That's the Lenin who 
became know to later generations. Again, not very 
surprisingly, because that's what Leninism really was 
in practice."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
<p>

Ironically, given Marx's own comments on the subject, a key 
hindrance to such an evaluation is the whole idea and history 
of Marxism itself. While, as Murray Bookchin noted <i>"to his 
lasting credit,"</i> Marx tried (to some degree) <i>"to create a 
movement that looks to the future instead of to the past,"</i> 
his followers have not done so. <i>"Once again,"</i> Bookchin 
argues, <i>"the dead are walking in our midst -- ironically, 
draped in the name of Marx, the man who tried to bury the 
dead of the nineteenth century. So the revolution of our own 
day can do nothing better than parody, in turn, the October 
Revolution of 1918 and the civil war of 1918-1920 . . . The 
complete, all-sided revolution of our own day . . . follows 
the partial, the incomplete, the one-sided revolutions of 
the past, which merely changed the form of the 'social 
question,' replacing one system of domination and hierarchy 
by another."</i> [<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 174 and p. 175] 
In Marx's words, the <i>"tradition of all the dead generations 
weighs down like a nightmare on the brain of the living."</i> 
Marx's own work, and the movements it inspired, now add to 
this dead-weight. In order to ensure, as Marx put it, the 
social revolution draws is poetry from the future rather 
than the past, Marxism itself must be transcended.
<p>
Which, of course, means evaluating both the theory <b>and</b> 
practice of Marxism. For anarchists, it seems strange that 
for a body of work whose followers stress is revolutionary
and liberating, its results have been so bad. If Marxism is 
so obviously revolutionary and democratic, then why have so 
few of the people who read it drawn those conclusions? How
could it be transmuted so easily into Stalinism? Why are 
there so few <b>libertarian</b> Marxists, if it was Lenin (or
Social Democracy) which <i>"misinterpreted"</i> Marx and Engels?
So when Marxists argue that the problem is in the 
interpretation of the message not in the message itself, 
anarchists reply that the reason these numerous, allegedly 
false, interpretations exist at all simply suggests that 
there are limitations within Marxism <b>as such</b> rather than 
the readings it has been subjected to. When something 
repeatedly fails (and produces such terrible results), 
then there has to be a fundamental flaw somewhere. 
<p>
Thus Cornelius Castoriadis:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Marx was, in fact, the first to stress that the significance
of a theory cannot be grasped independently of the historical
and social practice it inspires and initiates, to which it
gives rise, in which it prolongs itself and under cover of
which a given practice seeks to justify itself.
<p>
"Who, today, would dare proclaim that the only significance
of Christianity for history is to be found in reading 
unaltered versions of the Gospels or that the historical
practice of various Churches over a period of some 2,000
years can teach us nothing fundamental about the significance
of this religious movement? A 'faithfulness to Marx' which
would see the historical fate of Marxism as something 
unimportant would be just as laughable. It would in fact
be quite ridiculous. Whereas for the Christian the revelations
of the Gospels have a transcendental kernel and an intemporal
validity, no theory could ever have such qualities in the
eyes of a Marxist. To seek to discover the meaning of 
Marxism only in what Marx wrote (while keeping quiet about
what the doctrine has become in history) is to pretend --
in flagrant contradiction with the central ideas of that
doctrine -- that real history doesn't count and that the 
truth of a theory is always and exclusively to be found 
'further on.' It finally comes to replacing revolution 
by revelation and the understanding of events by the
exegesis of texts."</i> [<i>"The Fate of Marxism,"</i> pp. 75-84
<b>The Anarchist Papers</b>, Dimitrios Roussopoulos (ed.), 
p. 77]
</blockquote><p>
This does not mean forsaking the work of Marx and Engels. It
means rejecting once and for all the idea that two people,
writing over a period of decades over a hundred years ago 
have all the answers. As should be obvious! Ultimately, 
anarchists think we have to <b>build</b> upon the legacy of the
past, not squeeze current events into it. We should stand 
on the shoulders of giants, not at their feet.
<p>
Thus this section of our FAQ will attempt to explain the various
myths of Marxism and provide an anarchist critique of Marxism and
its offshoots. Of course, the ultimate myth of Marxism is what 
Alexander Berkman called <i>"The Bolshevik Myth,"</i> namely the idea 
that the Russian Revolution was a success. However, as we discuss 
this revolution in the appendix on
<a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> we will not do so here except
when it provides useful empirical evidence for our critique. Our
discussion here will concentrate for the most part on Marxist
theory, showing its inadequacies, its problems, where it 
appropriated anarchist ideas and how anarchism and Marxism 
differ. This is a big task and this section of the FAQ can 
only be a small contribution to it. 
<p>
As noted above, there are minority trends in Marxism which are 
libertarian in nature (i.e. close to anarchism). As such, it 
would be simplistic to say that anarchists are <i>"anti-Marxist"</i> 
and we generally do differentiate between the (minority) 
libertarian element and the authoritarian mainstream of Marxism 
(i.e. Social-Democracy and Leninism in its many forms). Without 
doubt, Marx contributed immensely to the enrichment of socialist 
ideas and analysis (as acknowledged by Bakunin, for example). 
His influence, as to be expected, was both positive and negative. 
For this reason he must be read and discussed critically. This 
FAQ is a contribution to this task of transcending the work of 
Marx. As with anarchist thinkers, we must take what is useful 
from Marx and reject the rubbish. But never forget that 
anarchists are anarchists precisely because we think that 
anarchist thinkers have got more right than wrong and we reject 
the idea of tying our politics to the name of a long dead thinker. 
<p>
<a name="sech31"><h2>H.3.1 Do Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing?</h2>
<p>
Ultimately, the greatest myth of Marxism is the idea that 
anarchists and most Marxists want the same thing. Indeed, 
it could be argued that it is anarchist criticism of Marxism 
which has made them stress the similarity of long term goals 
with anarchism.  <i>"Our polemics against them [the Marxists],"</i>
Bakunin argued, <i>"have forced them to recognise that freedom, 
or anarchy -- that is, the voluntary organisation of the 
workers from below upward -- is the ultimate goal of social 
development."</i> He continued by stressing that the means to 
this apparently similar end were different. The Marxists, he
argues, <i>"say that [a] state yoke, [a] dictatorship, is a 
necessary transitional device for achieving the total 
liberation of the people: anarchy, or freedom, is the goal, 
and the state, or dictatorship, is the means . . . We reply 
that no  dictatorship can have any other objective than to 
perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture 
only slavery in the people who endure it. Liberty can be 
created only by liberty, by an insurrection of all the 
people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from 
below upwards."</i> [<b>Statism and Anarchy</b>, p. 179]
<p>
As such, it is commonly taken for granted that the ends of
both Marxists and Anarchists are the same, we just disagree
over the means. However, within this general agreement over 
the ultimate end (a classless and stateless society), the 
details of such a society are somewhat different. This, 
perhaps, is to be expected given the differences in means. 
As is obvious from Bakunin's argument, anarchists stress 
the unity of means and goals, that the means which are 
used affect the goal reached. This unity between means 
and ends is expressed well by Martin Buber's observation 
that <i>"[o]ne cannot in the nature of things expect a little 
tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves."</i> 
[<b>Paths in Utopia</b>, p. 127] In summary, we cannot expect 
to reach our end destination if we take a path going 
in the opposite direction. As such, the agreement on ends
may not be as close as often imagined.
<p>
So when it is stated that anarchists and state socialists 
want the same thing, the following should be borne in mind. 
Firstly, there are key differences on the question of current 
tactics. Secondly, there is the question of the immediate 
aims of a revolution. Thirdly, there is the long term goals 
of such a revolution. These three aspects form a coherent 
whole, with each one logically following on from the last. 
As we will show, the anarchist and Marxist vision of each 
aspect are distinctly different, so suggesting that the short, 
medium <b>and</b> long term goals of each theory are, in fact, 
different. We will discuss each aspect in turn.
<p>
Firstly, the question of the nature of the revolutionary 
movement. Here anarchists and most Marxists have distinctly 
opposing ideas. The former argue that both the revolutionary 
organisation (i.e. an anarchist federation) and the wider 
labour movement should be organised in line with the vision 
of society which inspires us. This means that it should be 
a federation of self-managed groups based on the direct 
participation of its membership in the decision making 
process. Power, therefore, is decentralised and there is 
no division between those who make the decisions and those 
who execute them. We reject the idea of others acting on 
our behalf or on behalf of the people and so urge the use 
of direct action and solidarity, based upon working class 
self-organisation, self-management and autonomy. Thus, 
anarchists apply their ideas in the struggle against the 
current system, arguing what is "efficient" from a 
hierarchical or class position is deeply inefficient from 
a revolutionary perspective.
<p>
Marxists disagree. Most Marxists are also Leninists. They 
argue that we must form <i>"vanguard"</i> parties based on the 
principles of <i>"democratic centralism"</i> complete with 
institutionalised leaderships. They argue that how we 
organise today is independent of the kind of society we 
seek and that the party should aim to become the 
recognised leadership of the working class. Every thing
they do is subordinated to this end, meaning that no  
struggle is seen as an end in itself but rather as a 
means to gaining membership and influence for the party
until such time as it gather enough support to seize power.
As this is a key point of contention between anarchists 
and Leninists, we discuss this in some detail in 
<a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a> 
and its related sections and so not do so here. 
<p>
Obviously, in the short term anarchists and Leninists 
cannot be said to want the same thing. While we seek 
a revolutionary movement based on libertarian (i.e. 
revolutionary) principles, the Leninists seek a party 
based on distinctly bourgeois principles of centralisation, 
delegation of power and representative over direct democracy. 
Both, of course, argue that only their system of organisation 
is effective and efficient (see 
<a href="secH5.html#sech58">section H.5.8</a> 
on a discussion 
why anarchists argue that the Leninist model is not effective 
from a revolutionary perspective). The anarchist perspective 
is to see the revolutionary organisation as part of the 
working class, encouraging and helping those in struggle to 
clarify the ideas they draw from their own experiences and 
its role is to provide a lead rather than a new set of leaders 
to be followed (see 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a> for more on this). The 
Leninist perspective is to see the revolutionary party as 
the leadership of the working class, introducing socialist 
consciousness into a class which cannot generate itself 
(see <a href="secH5.html#sech51">section H.5.1</a>).
<p>
Given the Leninist preference for centralisation and a leadership 
role by hierarchical organisation, it will come as no surprise 
that their ideas on the nature of post-revolutionary society are 
distinctly different from anarchists. While there is a tendency
for Leninists to deny that anarchists have a clear idea of what
will immediately be created by a revolution (see 
<a href="secH1.html#sech14">section H.1.4</a>),
we do have concrete ideas on the kind of society a revolution 
will immediately create. This vision is in almost every way 
different from that proposed by most Marxists. 
<p>
Firstly, there is the question of the state. Anarchists, 
unsurprisingly enough, seek to destroy it. Simply put, while 
anarchists want a stateless and classless society and advocate 
the means appropriate to those ends, most Marxists argue that 
in order to reach a stateless society we need a new <i>"workers'"</i>
state, a state, moreover, in which their party will be in 
charge. Trotsky, writing in 1906, made this clear when he
argued that <i>"[e]very political party deserving of the name 
aims at seizing governmental power and thus putting the state 
at the service of the class whose interests it represents."</i> 
[quoted by Israel Getzler, <i>"Marxist Revolutionaries and the 
Dilemma of Power"</i>, pp. 88-112, <b>Revolution and Politics in
Russia</b>, Alexander and Janet Rabinowitch and Ladis K.D. 
Kristof (eds,), p. 105] This fits in with Marx's 1852 
comments that <i>"Universal Suffrage is the equivalent of 
political power for the working class of England, where 
the proletariat forms the large majority of the population 
. . . Its inevitable result, here, is <b>the political 
supremacy of the working class.</b>"</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, 
vol. 11, pp. 335-6] In other words, <i>"political power"</i> simply means
the ability to nominate a government. Thus Engels:
<p><blockquote><i>
"In every struggle of class against class, the next end
fought for is political power; the ruling class defends
its political supremacy, that is to say its safe majority
in the Legislature; the inferior class fights for, first
a share, then the whole of that power, in order to become
enabled to change existing laws in conformity with their
own interests and requirements. Thus the working class of
Great Britain for years fought ardently and even violently 
for the People's Charter [which demanded universal suffrage
and yearly general elections], which was to give it that 
political power."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 24, p. 386]
</blockquote><p>
While Marxists like to portray this new government as <i>"the 
dictatorship of the proletariat,"</i> anarchist argue that, 
in fact, it will be the dictatorship <b>over</b> the proletariat. 
This is because if the working class <b>is</b> the ruling class 
(as Marxists claim) then, anarchists argue, how can they 
delegate their power to a government and remain so? Either 
the working class directly manages its own affairs (and so 
society) or the government does. We discuss this issue in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">section H.3.7</a> any state 
is simply rule by a few and so 
is incompatible with socialism. The obvious implication of 
this is that Marxism seeks party rule, not working class 
direct management of society (as we discuss in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a>, 
the Leninist tradition is extremely clear on this 
matter).

<p>
Then there is the question of the building blocks of 
socialism. Yet again, there is a clear difference between 
anarchism and Marxism. Anarchists have always argued that 
the basis of socialism is working class organisations,
created in the struggle against capitalism and the state
(see <a href="secH1.html#sech14">section H.1.4</a> 
for details). This applies to both
the social and economic structure of a post-revolutionary
society. For most forms of Marxism, a radically different
picture has been the dominant one. As we discuss in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech310">section H.3.10</a>, 
Marxists only reached a similar vision for the
political structure of socialism in 1917 when Lenin 
supported the soviets as he framework of his workers' state.
However, as we prove in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech311">section H.3.11</a>, 
he did so for 
instrumental purposes only, namely as the best means of 
assuring Bolshevik power. If the soviets clashed with the
party, it was the latter which took precedence. Unsurprisingly,
the Bolshevik mainstream moved from <i>"All Power to the Soviets"</i>
to <i>"dictatorship of the party"</i> rather quickly. Thus, unlike
anarchism, most forms of Marxism aim for party power, a
"revolutionary" government above the organs of working class 
self-management.
<p>
Economically, there are also clear differences. Anarchists have 
consistently argued that the workers <i>"ought to be the real 
managers of industries."</i> [Peter Kropotkin, <b>Fields, Factories 
and Workshops Tomorrow</b>, p. 157] To achieve this, we have 
pointed to various organisations over time, such as factory
committees and labour unions as the <i>"medium which Socialist
forms of life could find . . . realisation."</i> Thus they would 
<i>"not only [be] an instrument for the improvement of the 
conditions of labour, but also of [were capable of] becoming 
an organisation which might . . . take into its hands the 
management of production."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>The Conquest of 
Bread</b>, pp. 22-3]
<p>
As we discuss in more detail in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech312">section H.3.12</a>, Lenin, in 
contrast, saw socialism as being constructed on the basis 
of structures and techniques (including management ones) 
developed under capitalism. Rather than see socialism as 
being built around new, working class organisations, Lenin 
saw it being constructed on the basis of developments in 
capitalist organisation. <i>"The Leninist road to socialism,"</i>
notes one expert on Lenin, <i>"emphatically ran through the 
terrain of monopoly capitalism. It would, according to Lenin, 
abolish neither its advanced technological base nor its 
institutionalised means for allocating resources or 
structuring industry. . . The institutionalised framework 
of advanced capitalism could, to put it shortly, be utilised
for realisation of specifically socialist goals. They were 
to become, indeed, the principal (almost exclusive) 
instruments of socialist transformation."</i> [Neil Harding,
<b>Leninism</b>, p.145] As Lenin explained, socialism is 
<i>"nothing but the next step forward from state capitalist 
monopoly. In other words, Socialism is nothing but state 
capitalist monopoly <b>made to benefit the whole people</b>; by 
this token it <b>ceases</b> to be capitalist monopoly."</i> [<b>The 
Threatening Catastrophe and how to avoid it</b>, p. 37]
<p>
The role of workers' in this vision was basically unchanged. 
Rather than demand, like anarchists, workers' self-management 
of production in 1917, Lenin raised the demand for <i>"universal, 
all-embracing workers' control over the capitalists."</i> [<b>Will 
the Bolsheviks Maintain Power</b>, p. 52] Once the Bolsheviks
were in power, the workers' own organs (the factory committees) 
were integrated into a system of state control, losing whatever 
power they once held at the point of production. Lenin then 
modified this vision by raising <i>"one-man management"</i> over the 
workers (see <a href="secH3.html#sech314">section H.3.14</a>). 
In other words, a form of <b>state</b> 
capitalism in which workers would still be wage slaves under 
bosses appointed by the state. Unsurprisingly, the <i>"control"</i> 
workers exercised over their bosses (i.e. those with <b>real</b> 
power in production) proved to be as elusive in production 
as it was in the state. In this, Lenin undoubtedly followed 
the lead of the <b>Communist Manifesto</b> which stressed state 
ownership of the means of production without a word about 
workers' self-management of production. As we discuss in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech313">section H.3.13</a>, state "socialism" cannot help being <i>"state 
capitalism"</i> by its very nature.
<p>
Needless to say, as far as means go, few anarchists and
syndicalists are complete pacifists. As syndicalist Emile 
Pouget argued, <i>"[h]istory teaches that the privileged have 
never surrendered their privileges without having been compelled 
so to do and forced into it by their rebellious victims. It 
is unlikely that the bourgeoisie is blessed with an exceptional 
greatness of soul and will abdicate voluntarily."</i> This meant
that <i>"[r]ecourse to force . . . will be required."</i> [<b>The Party 
Of Labour</b>] This does not mean that libertarians glorify
violence or argue that all forms of violence are acceptable
(quite the reverse!), it simply means that for self-defence
against violent opponents violence is, unfortunately, sometimes
required.
<p>
The way an anarchist revolution would defend itself also shows
a key difference between anarchism and Marxism. As we discussed
in <a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a>, 
anarchists (regardless of Marxist claims) have
always argued that a revolution needs to defend itself. This
would be organised in a federal, bottom-up way as the social
structure of a free society. It would be based on voluntary 
working class militias. As Bakunin put it, <i>"the peasants, like 
the industrial city workers, should unite by federating the 
fighting battalions, district by district, this assuring a 
common co-ordinated defence against internal and external 
enemies."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 190] This model of working 
class self-defence was applied successfully in both the Spanish 
and Ukrainian revolutions (by the CNT-FAI and the Makhnovists, 
respectively). In contrast, the Bolshevik method of defending a 
revolution was the top-down, hierarchical and centralised "Red 
Army" (see <a href="append41.html#app14">section 14</a> of the
appendix on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> for 
details). As the example of the 
Makhnovists (see the appendix on <a href="append46.html">"Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to
Bolshevism?"</a>) showed, the "Red Army" was not 
the only way the Russian Revolution could have been defended
although it was the only way Bolshevik power could be.
<p>
So while Anarchists have consistently argued that socialism 
must be based on working class self-management of production
and society based on working class organisations, the Leninist 
tradition has not supported this vision (although it has 
appropriated some of its imagery to gain popular support). 
Clearly, in terms of the immediate aftermath of a revolution, 
anarchists and Leninists do not seek the same thing. The former 
want a free society organised and run from below-upwards by the
working class based on workers self-management of production
while the latter seek party power in a new state structure 
which would preside over an essentially state capitalist 
economy.
<p>
Lastly, there is the question of the long term goal. Even 
in this vision of a classless and stateless society there 
is very little in common between anarchist communism and 
Marxist communism, beyond the similar terminology used to 
describe it. This is blurred by the differences in terminology 
used by both theories. Marx and Engels had raised in the 1840s 
the (long term) goal of <i>"an association, in which the free 
development of each is the condition for the free development 
of all"</i> replacing <i>"the old bourgeois society, with its classes 
and class antagonisms,"</i> in the <b>Communist Manifesto</b>. Before 
this <i>"vast association of the whole nation"</i> was possible, the 
proletariat would be <i>"raise[d] . . . to the position of ruling 
class"</i> and <i>"all capital"</i> would be <i>"centralise[d] . . . in the 
hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the 
ruling class."</i> As economic classes would no longer exist, 
"the public power would lose its political character"</i> as 
political power <i>"is merely the organised power of one class 
for oppressing another."</i> [<b>Manifesto of the Communist Party</b>, 
p. 53] 
<p>
It was this, the means to the end, which was the focus of much 
debate (see <a href="secH1.html#sech11">section H.1.1</a> 
for details). However, it cannot be
assumed that the ends desired by Marxists and anarchists are 
identical. The argument that the <i>"public power"</i> could stop being
<i>"political"</i> (i.e. a state) is a tautology, and a particularly 
unconvincing one at that. After all, if <i>"political power"</i> is 
defined as being an instrument of class rule it automatically 
follows that a classless society would have a non-political 
<i>"public power"</i> and so be without a state! This does not imply 
that a <i>"public power"</i> would no longer exist as a structure 
within (or, more correctly, over) society, it just implies 
that its role would no longer be <i>"political"</i> (i.e. an 
instrument of class rule). Given that, according to the
Manifesto, the state would centralise the means of production,
credit and transportation and then organise it <i>"in accordance
with a common plan"</i> using <i>"industrial armies, especially for
agriculture"</i> this would suggest that the state structure 
would remain even after its <i>"political"</i> aspects had, to use
Engels term, <i>"withered away."</i> [Marx and Engels, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
pp. 52-3]
<p>
From this perspective, the difference between anarchist
communism and Marxist-communism is clear. <i>"While both,"</i>
notes John Clark, <i>"foresee the disappearance of the state, 
the achievement of social management of the economy, the 
end of class rule, and the attainment of human equality, 
to mention a few common goals, significant differences 
in ends still remain. Marxist thought has inherited a
vision which looks to high development of technology 
with a corresponding degree of centralisation of social
institutions which will continue even after the coming 
of the social revolution. . . . The anarchist vision sees
the human scale as essential, both in the techniques which
are used for production, and for the institutions which
arise from the new modes of association . . . In addition,
the anarchist ideal has a strong hedonistic element which
has seen Germanic socialism as ascetic and Puritanical."</i>
[<b>The Anarchist Moment</b>, p. 68] 
<p>
Moreover, it is unlikely that such a centralised system
could become stateless and classless in actuality. As 
Bakunin argued, in the Marxist state <i>"there will be no 
privileged class. Everybody will be equal, not only from 
the judicial and political but also from the economic 
standpoint. This is the promise at any rate . . . So there 
will be no more class, but a government, and, please note, 
an extremely complicated government which, not content 
with governing and administering the masses politically 
. . . will also administer them economically, by taking 
over the production and <b>fair</b> sharing of wealth, 
agriculture, the establishment and development of factories, 
the organisation and control of trade, and lastly the 
injection of capital into production by a single banker, 
the State."</i> Such a system would be, in fact, <i>"the reign 
of the <b>scientific mind,</b> the most aristocratic, despotic, 
arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes"</i> base on <i>"a new 
class, a new hierarchy of real or bogus learning, and
the world will be divided into a dominant, science-based
minority and a vast, ignorant majority."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings</b>, p. 266] 
<p>
George Barrett's words also seem appropriate:
<p><blockquote><i>
"The modern Socialist . . . have steadily worked for 
centralisation, and complete and perfect organisation 
and control by those in authority above the people. The 
anarchist, on the other hand, believes in the abolition 
of that central power, and expects the free society to 
grow into existence from below, starting with those 
organisations and free agreements among the people
themselves. It is difficult to see how, by making a 
central power control everything, we can be making a 
step towards the abolition of that power."</i> [<b>Objections 
to Anarchism</b>]
</blockquote><p>
As Brain Morris notes, <i>"Bakunin's fears that under Marx's 
kind of socialism the workers would continue to labour 
under a regimented, mechanised, hierarchical system of 
production, without direct control over their labour, has 
been more than confirmed by the realities of the Bolshevik 
system. Thus, Bakunin's critique of Marxism has taken on an 
increasing relevance in the age of bureaucratic State 
capitalism."</i> [<b>Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom</b>, p. 132]
<p>
Therefore, anarchists are not convinced that a highly 
centralised structure (as a state is) managing the 
economic life of society can be part of a truly classless 
society. While economic class as defined in terms of 
property may not exist, social classes (defined in 
terms of inequality of power and wealth) will continue 
simply because the state is designed to create and 
protect minority rule (see 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">section H.3.7</a>). As Bolshevik 
and Stalinist Russia showed, nationalising the means of 
production does not end class society. As Malatesta argued:
<p><blockquote><i>
"When F. Engels, perhaps to counter anarchist criticisms, 
said that once classes disappear the State as such has no 
<b>raison d'etre</b> and transforms itself from a government of 
men into an administration of thing, he was merely playing 
with words. Whoever has power over things has power over men; 
whoever governs production also governs the producers; who 
determines consumption is master over the consumer.
<p>
"This is the question; either things are administered on the 
basis of free agreement of the interested parties, and this 
is anarchy; or they are administered according to laws made 
by administrators and this is government, it is the State, 
and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical.
<p>
"It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will 
of this or that man, but of the inevitability of the situation, 
and of the tendencies which man generally develops in given

circumstances."</i> [<b>Life and Ideas</b>, p. 145]
</blockquote><p>
The anarchist vision of the future society, therefore, does not 
exactly match the state communist vision, as much as the latter 
would like to suggest it does. The difference between the two is 
authority, which cannot be anything but the largest difference
possible. Anarchist economic and organisational theories are 
built around an anti-authoritarian core and this informs both 
our means and aims. For anarchists, the Leninist vision of 
socialism is unattractive. Lenin continually stressed that his 
conception of socialism and <i>"state capitalism"</i> were basically 
identical. Even in <b>State and Revolution</b>, allegedly Lenin's 
most libertarian work, we discover this particularly unvisionary 
and uninspiring vision of "socialism":
<p><blockquote><i>
"<b>All</b> citizens are transformed into the salaried employees of
the state . . . <b>All</b> citizens become employees and workers of
a <b>single</b> national state 'syndicate' . . .  The whole of 
society will have become a single office and a single factory 
with equality of work and equality of pay."</i> [<b>Essential Works 
of Lenin</b>, p. 348]
</blockquote><p>
To which, anarchists point to Engels and his comments on the
tyrannical and authoritarian character of the modern factory
(as we discuss in 
<a href="secH4.html#sech44">section H.4.4</a>). 
Engels, let us not forget,
had argued against the anarchists that large-scale industry 
(or, indeed, any form of organisation) meant that <i>"authority"</i> 
was required (organisation meant that <i>"the will of a single 
individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means 
that questions are settled in an authoritarian way."</i>). He (like
the factory owner he was) stated that factories should have 
<i>"Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate"</i> (<i>"Leave, ye that 
enter in, all autonomy behind"</i>) written above their doors. 
This obedience, Engels argued, was necessary even under 
socialism, as applying the <i>"forces of nature"</i> meant <i>"a 
veritable despotism independent of all social organisation."</i> 
This meant that <i>"[w]anting to abolish authority in large-scale 
industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself."</i> 
[<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 731] Clearly, Lenin's idea of turning 
the world into one big factory takes on an extremely frightening
nature given Engels lovely vision of the lack of freedom in 
industry. 
<p>
For these reasons anarchists reject the simplistic Marxist
analysis of inequality being rooted simply in economic class. 
Such an analysis, as the comments of Lenin and Engels prove, 
show that social inequality can be smuggled in by the backdoor 
of a proposed classless and stateless society. Thus Bookchin:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Basic to anti-authoritarian Socialism ---specifically, 
to Anarchist Communism -- is the notion that hierarchy and
domination cannot be subsumed by class rule and economic
exploitation, indeed, that they are more fundamental to
an understanding of the modern revolutionary project.
Before 'man' began to exploit 'man,' he began to dominate
woman . . . Power of human over human long antedates <b>the
very formation of classes and economic modes of social
oppression.</b> . . . This much is clear: it will no longer
do to insist that a classless society, freed from material
exploitation, will necessarily be a liberated society.
There is nothing in the social future to suggest that
bureaucracy is incompatible with a classless society,
the domination of women, the young, ethnic groups or
even professional strata."</i> [<b>Toward an Ecological 
Society</b>, pp. 208-9]
</blockquote><p>
Ultimately, anarchists see that <i>"there is a realm of domination 
that is broader than the realm of material exploitation. The 
tragedy of the socialist movement is that, steeped in the past, 
it uses the methods of domination to try to 'liberate' us from 
material exploitation."</i> Needless to say, this is doomed to 
failure. Socialism <i>"will simply mire us in a world we are 
trying to overcome. A non-hierarchical society, self-managed 
and free of domination in all its forms, stands on the agenda 
today, not a hierarchical system draped in a red flag."</i> [Murray
Bookchin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 272 and pp. 273-4]
<p>
In summary, it cannot be said that anarchists and most Marxists 
want the same thing. While they often use the same terms, these 
terms often hide radically different concepts. Just because, say, 
anarchists and mainstream Marxists talk about <i>"social revolution,"</i> 
"socialism,"</i> <i>"all power to the soviets"</i> and so on, it does not 
mean that we mean the same thing by them. For example, the phrase 
<i>"all power to the soviets"</i> for anarchists means exactly that (i.e. 
that the revolution must be directly managed by working class 
organs). Leninists mean <i>"all power to a central government 
elected by a national soviet congress."</i> Similarly with other 
similar phrases (which shows the importance of looking at the 
details of any political theory and its history). 
<p>
We have shown that discussion over ends is as important 
as discussion over means as they are related. As Kropotkin 
once pointed out, those who downplay the importance of 
discussing the <i>"order of things which . . . should emerge 
from the coming revolution"</i> in favour of concentrating on 
<i>"practical things"</i> are being less than honest as <i>"far from 
making light of such theories, they propagate them, and all 
that they do now is a logical extension of their ideas. In 
the end those words 'Let us not discuss theoretical questions' 
really mean: 'Do not subject our theory to discussion, but 
help us to put it into execution.'"</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, 
p. 200]
<p>
Hence the need to critically evaluate both ends and means.
This shows the weakness of the common argument that anarchists
and Leftists share some common visions and so we should work 
with them to achieve those common things. Who knows what 
happens after that? As can be seen, this is not the case. 
Many aspects of anarchism and Marxism are in opposition and 
cannot be considered similar (for example, what a Leninist 
considers as socialism is extremely different to what an 
anarchist thinks it is). If you consider <i>"socialism"</i> as
being a <i>"workers' state"</i> presided over by a <i>"revolutionary"</i>
government, then how can this be reconciled with the 
anarchist vision of a federation of self-managed communes
and workers' associations? As the Russian Revolution shows,
only by the armed might of the <i>"revolutionary"</i> government 
crushing the anarchist vision.
<p>
The only thing we truly share with these groups is a mutual 
opposition to existing capitalism. Having a common enemy does
not make someone friends. Hence anarchists, while willing 
to work on certain mutual struggles, are well aware there is 
substantial differences in both terms of means and goals. The
lessons of revolution in the 20th Century is that once in power,
Leninists will repress anarchists, their current allies against
the capitalist system. This is does not occur by accident, it 
flows from the differences in vision between the two movements,
both in terms of means and goals.
<p>
<a name="sech32"><h2>H.3.2 Is Marxism <i>"socialism from below"</i>?</h2>
<p>
Some Marxists, such as the <b>International Socialist Tendency</b>,
like to portray their tradition as being <i>"socialism from 
below."</i> Under <i>"socialism from below,"</i> they place the ideas
of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, arguing that they and
they alone have continued this, the true, ideal of socialism
(Hal Draper's essay <i>"The Two Souls of Socialism"</i> seems to have
been the first to argue along these lines). They contrast this 
idea of <i>"democratic"</i> socialism <i>"from below"</i> with <i>"socialism 
from above,"</i> in which they place reformist socialism (social 
democracy, Labourism, etc.), elitist socialism (Lassalle and 
others who wanted educated and liberal members of the middle 
classes to liberate the working class) and Stalinism 
(bureaucratic dictatorship over the working class). 
<p>
For those who uphold this idea, <i>"Socialism from below"</i> is simply 
the self-emancipation of the working class by its own efforts. 
To anarchist ears, the claim that Marxism (and in particular
Leninism) is socialism <i>"from below"</i> sounds paradoxical, indeed
laughable. This is because anarchists from Proudhon onwards 
have used the imagery of socialism being created and run from 
below upwards. They have been doing so for far longer than 
Marxists have. As such, <i>"socialism from below"</i> simply sums 
up the <b><i>anarchist</i></b> ideal! 
<p>
Thus we find Proudhon in 1848 talking about being a 
<i>"revolutionary <b>from below</b>"</i> and that every <i>"serious and 
lasting Revolution"</i> was <i>"made <b>from below,</b> by the people."</i> 
A <i>"Revolution <b>from above</b>"</i> was <i>"pure governmentalism,"</i> 
<i>"the negation of collective activity, of popular 
spontaneity"</i> and is <i>"the oppression of the wills of 
those below."</i> [quoted by George Woodcock, <b>Pierre-Joseph 
Proudhon</b>, p. 143] For Proudhon, the means of this revolution
<i>"from below"</i> would be working class associations for both 
credit (mutual banks) and production (workers' associations
or co-operatives). The workers, <i>"organised among themselves,
without the assistance of the capitalist"</i> would march by
<i>"Work to the conquest of the world"</i> by the <i>"force of 
principle."</i> Thus capitalism would be reformed away by 
the actions of the workers themselves. The <i>"problem of
association,"</i> Proudhon argues, <i>"consists in organising
 . . . the <b>producers,</b> and by this subjecting capital 
subordinating power. Such is the war of liberty against
authority, a war of the producer against the non-producer;
a war of equality against privilege . . . An agricultural
and industrial combination must be found by means of 
which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its
slave."</i> [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, <b>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
and the Rise of French Republican Socialism</b>, p. 148 and 
p. 157]
<p>
Similarly, Bakunin saw an anarchist revolution as coming 
<i>"from below."</i> As he put it, <i>"liberty can be created only by 
liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary 
organisation of the workers from below upward."</i> [<b>Statism
and Anarchy</b>, p. 179] Elsewhere he writes that <i>"popular
revolution"</i> would <i>"create its own organisation from the 
bottom upwards and from the circumference inwards, in 
accordance with the principle of liberty, and not from 
the top downwards and from the centre outwards, as in the
way of authority."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>,
p. 170] His vision of revolution and revolutionary 
self-organisation and construction from below was a 
core aspect of his anarchist ideas, arguing repeatedly
for <i>"the free organisation of the people's lives in 
accordance with their needs -- not from the top down, 
as we have it in the State, but from the bottom up,
an organisation formed by the people themselves . . . a
free union of associations of agricultural and factory 
workers, of communes, regions, and nations."</i> He stressed
that <i>"the politics of the Social Revolution"</i> was <i>"the
abolition of the State"</i> and <i>"the economic, altogether free
organisation of the people, an organisation from below
upward, by means of federation."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy
of Bakunin</b>, pp. 297-8]
<p>
While Proudhon wanted to revolutionise society, he rejected 
revolutionary means to do so (i.e. collective struggle, 
strikes, insurrection, etc.). Bakunin, however, was a 
revolutionary in this, the popular, sense of the word. Yet 
he shared with Proudhon the idea of socialism being created 
by the working class itself. As he put it, in <i>"a social 
revolution, which in everything is diametrically opposed 
to a political revolution, the actions of individuals 
hardly count at all, whereas the spontaneous action of 
the masses is everything. All that individuals can do is 
clarify, propagate and work out the ideas corresponding 
to the popular instinct, and, what is more, to contribute 
their incessant efforts to revolutionary organisation of 
the natural power of the masses -- but nothing else beyond 
that; the rest can and should be done by the people themselves 
. . . revolution can be waged and brought to its full 
development only through the spontaneous and continued 
mass action of groups and associations of the people."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 298-9]
<p>
Therefore, the idea of <i>"socialism from below"</i> is a distinctly
anarchist notion, one found in the works of Proudhon and
Bakunin and repeated by anarchists ever since. As such, to
hear Marxists appropriate this obviously anarchist terminology
and imagery appears to many anarchists as opportunistic and 
attempt to cover the authoritarian reality of mainstream Marxism 
with anarchist rhetoric. However, there are "libertarian" 
strains of Marxism which are close to anarchism. Does this mean 
that there are no elements of a <i>"socialism from below"</i> to be 
found in Marx and Engels? 
<p>
If we look at Marx, we get contradictory impressions. On the one 
hand, he argued that freedom <i>"consists in converting the state 
from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely 
subordinate to it."</i> Combine this with his comments on the Paris 
Commune (see his <i>"The Civil War in France"</i>), we can say that 
there are clearly elements of <i>"socialism from below"</i> in Marx's 
work. On the other hand, he often stresses the need for strict 
centralisation of power. In 1850, for example, he argued that 
the workers must <i>"not only strive for a single and indivisible 
German republic, but also within this republic for the most 
determined centralisation of power in the hands of the state 
authority."</i> This was because <i>"the path of revolutionary 
activity"</i> can <i>"proceed only from the centre."</i> This meant that 
the workers must be opposed to the <i>"federative republic"</i> 
planned by the democrats and <i>"must not allow themselves to be 
misguided by the democratic talk of freedom for the 
communities, of self-government, etc."</i> This centralisation 
of power was essential to overcome local autonomy, which 
would allow <i>"every village, every town and every province"</i> 
to put <i>"a new obstacle in the path"</i> the revolution due to 
<i>"local and provincial obstinacy."</i> Decades later, Marx 
dismisses Bakunin's vision of <i>"the free organisation of the 
worker masses from bottom to top"</i> as <i>"nonsense."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels 
Reader</b>, p. 537, p. 509 and p. 547]
<p>
Thus we have a contradiction. While arguing that the state 
must become subordinate to society, we have a central power
imposing its will on <i>"local and provincial obstinacy."</i> This 
implies a vision of revolution in which the centre (indeed, 
<i>"the state authority"</i>) forces its will on the population, 
which (by necessity) means that the centre power is 
<i>"superimposed upon society"</i> rather than <i>"subordinate"</i> 
to it. Given his dismissal of the idea of organisation from
bottom to top, we cannot argue that by this he meant simply
the co-ordination of local initiatives. Rather, we are struck
by the <i>"top-down"</i> picture of revolution Marx presents. Indeed,
his argument from 1850 suggests that Marx favoured centralism
not only in order to prevent the masses from creating obstacles
to the revolutionary activity of the <i>"centre,"</i> but also to
prevent them from interfering with their own liberation.
<p>
Looking at Engels, we discover him writing that <i>"[a]s soon 
as our Party is in possession of political power it has 
simply to expropriate the big landed proprietors just like the 
manufacturers in industry . . . thus restored to the community 
[they] are to be turned over by us to the rural workers who
are already cultivating them and are to be organised into
co-operatives."</i> He even states that this expropriation may
<i>"be compensated,"</i> depending on <i>"the circumstances which we
obtain power, and particularly by the attitude adopted by 
these gentry."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels Selected Writings</b>, pp. 638-9] 
Thus we have the party taking power, then expropriating the 
means of life <b>for the workers</b> and, lastly, <i>"turning over"</i> 
these to them. While this fits into the general scheme of 
the <b>Communist Manifesto</b>, it cannot be said to be <i>"socialism 
from below"</i> which can only signify the direct expropriation 
of the means of production by the workers themselves, 
organising themselves into free producer associations 
to do so. 
<p>
This vision of revolution as the party coming to power can
be seen from Engels' warning that the <i>"worse thing that can
befall the leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to
assume power at a time when the movement is not yet ripe 
for the domination of the class he represents and for the 
measures this domination implies."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, 
vol. 10, p. 469] Needless to say, such a vision is hard to 
equate with <i>"socialism from below"</i> which implies the active 
participation of the working class in the direct management 
of society from the bottom-up. If the leaders <i>"assume power"</i>
then <b>they</b> have the real power, not the class they claim 
to <i>"represent."</i> Equally, it seems strange that socialism can
be equated with a vision which equates <i>"domination"</i> of a 
class being achieved by the fact a leader <i>"represents"</i> it.
Can the working class really be said to be the ruling class
if its role in society is to select those who exercise power
on its behalf (i.e. to select representatives)? Bakunin quite
rightly answered in the negative. While representative 
democracy may be acceptable to ensure bourgeois rule, it 
cannot be assumed that it be utilised to create a socialist 
society. It was designed to defend class society and its 
centralised and top-down nature reflects this role. 
<p>
Moreover, Marx and Engels had argued in <b>The Holy Family</b> 
that the <i>"question is not what this or that proletarian, 
or even the whole of the proletariat at the moment <b>considers</b>
as its aim. The question is <b>what the proletariat is</b>, and 
what, consequent on that <b>being</b>, it will be compelled to do."</i> 
[quoted by Murray Bookchin, <b>The Spanish Anarchists</b>, p. 280] 
As Murray Bookchin argues:
<p><blockquote><i>
"These lines and others like them in Marx's writings were
to provide the rationale for asserting the authority of
Marxist parties and their armed detachments over and
even against the proletariat. Claiming a deeper and
more informed comprehension of the situation then
'even the whole of the proletariat at the given moment,'
Marxist parties went on to dissolve such revolutionary
forms of proletarian organisation as factory committees
and ultimately to totally regiment the proletariat 
according to lines established by the party leadership."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 289]
</blockquote><p>
Thus the ideological underpinning of a <i>"socialism from
above"</i> is expounded, one which dismisses what the members 
of the working class actually want or desire at a given
point (a position which Trotsky, for one, explicitly 
argued). A few years later, they argued in <b>The Communist 
Manifesto</b> that <i>"a portion of the bourgeois goes over to 
the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the 
bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to
the level of comprehending theoretically the historical
movement as a whole."</i> They also noted that the Communists
are <i>"the most advanced and resolute section of the 
working-class parties . . . [and] they have over the
great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly
understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the 
general results of the proletarian movement."</i> [<b>Selected 
Works</b>, p. 44 and p. 46] This gives a privileged place to 
the party (particularly the <i>"bourgeois ideologists"</i> who
join it), a privileged place which their followers had no
problem abusing in favour of party power and hierarchical 
leadership from above. As we discuss in 
<a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>, 
Lenin was just expressing orthodox Social-Democratic (i.e. 
Marxist) policy when he argued that socialist consciousness 
was created by bourgeois intellectuals and introduced into 
the working class from outside. Against this, we have to 
note that the Manifesto states that the proletarian movement 
was <i>"the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense 
majority, in the interests of the immense majority"</i> 
(although, as discussed in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech11">section H.1.1</a>, when they wrote
this the proletariat was a <b>minority</b> in all countries bar
Britain). [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 45] 
<p>
Looking at the tactics advocated by Marx and Engels, we 
see a strong support for <i>"political action"</i> in the sense
of participating in elections. This support undoubtedly 
flows from Engel's comments that universal suffrage <i>"in
an England two-thirds of whose inhabitants are industrial
proletarians means the exclusive political rule of the
working class with all the revolutionary changes in social
conditions which are inseparable from it."</i> [<b>Collected 
Works</b>, vol. 10, p. 298 Marx argued along identical lines. 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 11, pp. 335-6] However, how could an entire 
class, the proletariat organised as a <i>"movement"</i> exercise 
its power under such a system? While the atomised voting 
to nominate representatives (who, in reality, held the 
real power in society) may be more than adequate to 
ensure bourgeois, i.e. minority, power, could it be used 
for proletarian, i.e. majority, power?
<p>
This is because such institutions are designed to place 
policy-making in the  hands of representatives and do not 
(indeed, cannot) constitute a <i>"proletariat organised as a 
ruling class."</i> If public policy, as distinguished from 
administrative activities, is not made by the people 
themselves, in federations of self-managed assemblies, 
then a movement of the vast majority in the precise sense 
of the term cannot exist. For people to acquire real power 
over their lives and society, they must establish 
institutions organised and run, as Bakunin constantly 
stressed, from below. This would necessitate that they 
themselves directly manage their own affairs, communities 
and workplaces and, for co-ordination, mandate federal 
assemblies of revocable and strictly controllable delegates, 
who will execute their decisions. Only in this sense can a 
majority class, especially one committed to the abolition 
of all classes, organise as a class to manage society.
<p>
As such, Marx and Engels tactics are at odds with any idea of
<i>"socialism from below."</i> While, correctly, supporting strikes
and other forms of working class direct action (although,
significantly, Engels dismissed the general strike) they 
placed that support within a general political strategy which 
emphasised electioneering and representative forms. This,
however, is a form of struggle which can only really be
carried out by means of leaders. The role of the masses 
is minor, that of voters. The focus of the struggle is at
the top, in parliament, where the duly elected leaders are.
As Luigi Galleani argued, this form of action involved the
<i>"ceding of power by all to someone, the delegate, the 
representative, individual or group."</i> This meant that 
rather than the anarchist tactic of <i>"direct pressure 
put against the ruling classes by the masses,"</i> the Socialist
Party <i>"substituted representation and the rigid discipline 
of the parliamentary socialists,"</i> the inevitably resulted
in it <i>"adopt[ing] class collaboration in the legislative
arena, without which all reforms would remain a vain hope."</i>
It also resulted in the socialists needing <i>"authoritarian
organisations"</i>, i.e. ones which are centralised and disciplined 
from above down. [<b>The End of Anarchism?</b>, p. 14, p. 12 and
p. 14] The end result was the encouragement of a viewpoint
that reforms (indeed, the revolution) would be the work of
leaders acting on behalf of the masses whose role would be
that of voters and followers, not active participants in the
struggle (see <a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a> for a 
ddiscussion on direct action and why anarchists reject electioneering). 
<p>
By the 1890s, the top-down and essentially reformist nature
of these tactics had made their mark in both Engels politics
and the practical activities of the Social-Democratic parties.
Engels <i>"introduction"</i> to Marx's <b>The Class Struggles in France</b>
indicated how far Marxism had progressed. Engels, undoubtedly
influenced by the rise of Social-Democracy as an electoral
power, stressed the use of the ballot box as the ideal way, 
if not the only way, for the party to take power. He notes
that <i>"[w]e, the 'revolutionists', the 'overthrowers'"</i> were
<i>"thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods
and overthrow"</i> and the bourgeoisie <i>"cry despairingly . . .
legality is the death of us"</i> and were <i>"much more afraid of
the legal than of the illegal action of the workers' party,
of the results of elections than of those of rebellion."</i> He 
argued that it was essential <i>"not to fitter away this daily 
increasing shock force [of party voters] in vanguard skirmishes, 
but to keep it intact until the decisive day."</i> [<b>Selected 
Writings</b>, p. 656, p. 650 and p. 655] 
<p>
The net effect of this would simply be keeping the class 
struggle within the bounds decided upon by the party leaders, 
so placing the emphasis on the activities and decisions of 
those at the top rather than the struggle and decisions of 
the mass of working class people themselves. As we noted in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech11">section H.1.1</a>, 
when the party was racked by the <i>"revisionism"</i> 
controversy after Engels death, it was fundamentally a 
conflict between those who wanted the party's rhetoric to 
reflect its reformist tactics and those who sought the 
illusion of radical words to cover the reformist practice. 
The decision of the Party to support their state in the
First World War simply proved that radical words cannot 
defeat reformist tactics. 
<p>
Needless to say, from this contradictory inheritance, Marxists
had two ways of proceeding. Either they become explicitly 
anti-state (and so approach anarchism) or become explicitly
in favour of party and state power and so, by necessity, 
<i>"revolution from above."</i> The council communists and other 
libertarian Marxists followed the first path, the Bolsheviks 
and their followers the second. As we discuss in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech33">next section</a>, Lenin explicitly dismissed the idea that Marxism 
proceeded <i>"only from below,"</i> stating that this was an 
anarchist principle. Nor was he shy in equating party power
with working class power. Indeed, this vision of socialism 
as involving party power was not alien to the mainstream 
social-democracy Leninism split from. The leading left-wing 
Menshevik Martov argued as follows:
<p><blockquote><i>
"In a class struggle which has entered the phase of civil war,
there are bound to be times when the advance guard of the
revolutionary class, representing the interests of the broad
masses but ahead of them in political consciousness, is 
obliged to exercise state power by means of a dictatorship
of the revolutionary minority. Only a short-sighted and
doctrinaire viewpoint would reject this prospect as such. 
The real question at stake is whether this dictatorship, which
is unavoidable at a certain stage of any revolution, is 
exercised in such a way as to consolidate itself and create
a system of institutions enabling it to become a permanent
feature, or whether, on the contrary, it is replaced as soon
as possible by the organised initiative and autonomy of the
revolutionary class or classes as a whole. The second of 
these methods is that of the revolutionary Marxists who,
for this reason, style themselves Social Democrats; the
first is that of the Communists."</i> [<b>The Mensheviks in the
Russian Revolution</b>, Abraham Ascher (Ed.), p. 119]
</blockquote><p>
All this is to be expected, given the weakness of the Marxist
theory of the state. As we discuss in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">section H.3.7</a>, Marxists
have always had an a-historic perspective on the state, 
considering it as purely an instrument of class rule rather
than what it is, an instrument of <b>minority</b> class rule. For 
anarchists, the <i>"State is the minority government, from the 
top downward, of a vast quantity of men."</i> This automatically 
means that a socialism, like Marx's, which aims for a socialist 
government and a workers' state automatically becomes, against 
the wishes of its best activists, <i>"socialism from above."</i>
As Bakunin argued, Marxists are <i>"worshippers of State power, 
and necessarily also prophets of political and social discipline 
and champions of order established from the top downwards, 
always in the name of universal suffrage and the sovereignty 
of the masses, for whom they save the honour and privilege of 
obeying leaders, elected masters."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings</b>, p. 265 and pp. 237-8]
<p>
For this reason anarchists from Bakunin onwards have argued for 
a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the basis of 
revolution and the means of managing society after capitalism 
and the state have been abolished. If these organs of workers' 
self-management are co-opted into a state structure (as happened 
in Russia) then their power will be handed over to the real power 
in any state -- the government and its bureaucracy. The state 
is the delegation of power -- as such, it means that the idea 
of a <i>"workers' state"</i> expressing <i>"workers' power"</i> is a logical 
impossibility. If workers are running society then power rests 
in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in the hands 
of the handful of people at the top, not in the hands of all. 
The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be an 
organ of working class (i.e. majority) self-management due to 
its basic nature, structure and design.
<p>
So, while there are elements of <i>"socialism from below"</i> in the 
works of Marx and Engels they are placed within a distinctly 
centralised and authoritarian context which undermines them. 
As John Clark summarises, <i>"in the context of Marx's consistent 
advocacy of centralist programmes, and the part these programmes 
play in his theory of social development, the attempt to construct 
a <b>libertarian</b> Marxism by citing Marx's own proposals for social 
change would seem to present insuperable difficulties."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 93]
<p>
<a name="sech33"><h2>H.3.3 Is Leninism <i>"socialism from below"</i>?</h2>
<p>
As discussed in the <a href="secH3.html#sech32">last section</a>, 
Marx and Engels left their
followers with an ambiguous legacy. On the one hand, there

<b>are</b> elements of <i>"socialism from below"</i> in their politics
(most explicitly in Marx's comments on the libertarian 
influenced Paris Commune). On the other, there are distinctly
centralist and statist themes in their work. 
<p>
From this legacy, Leninism took the statist themes. Which 
explains why anarchists think the idea of Leninism being 
<i>"socialism from below"</i> is incredible. Simply put, the actual 
comments and actions of Lenin and his followers show that 
they had no commitment to a <i>"socialism from below."</i> As we 
will indicate, Lenin disassociated himself repeatedly from 
the idea of politics <i>"from below,"</i> considering it (quite 
rightly) an anarchist idea. In contrast, he stressed the 
importance of a politics which somehow combined action 
<i>"from above"</i> and <i>"from below."</i> For those Leninists who 
maintain that their tradition is <i>"socialism from below"</i> 
(indeed, the only <i>"real"</i> socialism <i>"from below"</i>), this is 
a major problem and, unsurprisingly, they generally fail 
to mention it. 
<p>
So what was Lenin's position on <i>"from below"</i>? In 1904, during 
the debate over the party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, 
Lenin stated that the argument <i>"[b]ureaucracy <b>versus</b> democracy 
is in fact centralism <b>versus</b> autonomism; it is the organisational 
principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy as opposed to the 
organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy. The 
latter strives to proceed from the bottom upward, and, therefore, 
wherever possible . . . upholds autonomism and 'democracy,' 
carried (by the overzealous) to the point of anarchism. The 
former strives to proceed from the top downward. . ."</i> [<b>Collected 
Works</b>, vol. 7, pp. 396-7] Thus it is the non-Bolshevik 
(<i>"opportunist"</i>) wing of Marxism which bases itself on the 
<i>"organisational principle"</i> of <i>"from the bottom upward,"</i> not 
the Bolshevik tradition (as we note in 
<a href="secH5.html#sech55">section H.5.5</a>, Lenin 
also rejected the <i>"primitive democracy"</i> of mass assemblies as 
the basis of the labour and revolutionary movements). Moreover, 
this vision of a party run from the top down was enshrined in 
the Bolshevik ideal of <i>"democratic centralism"</i> (see 
<a href="secH5.html#sech55">section H.5.5</a>). 
How you can have <i>"socialism from below"</i> when your <i>"organisational 
principle"</i> is <i>"from the top downward"</i> is not explained by Leninist 
exponents of <i>"socialism from below."</i>
<p>
Lenin repeated this argument in his discussion on the right 
tactics to apply during the near revolution of 1905. He 
mocked the Mensheviks for only wanting <i>"pressure from below"</i> 
which was <i>"pressure by the citizens on the revolutionary 
government."</i> Instead, he argued for <i>"pressure . . . from above 
as well as from below,"</i> where <i>"pressure from above"</i> was 
<i>"pressure by the revolutionary government on the citizens."</i> 
He notes that Engels <i>"appreciated the importance of action 
from above"</i> and that he saw the need for <i>"the utilisation of 
the revolutionary governmental power."</i> Lenin summarised his 
position (which he considered as being in line with that of 
orthodox Marxism) by stating that <i>"[l]imitation, in principle, 
of revolutionary action to pressure from below and renunciation
of pressure also from above is <b>anarchism.</b>"</i> [Marx, Engels and 
Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, pp. 189-90, p. 193,
p. 195 and p. 196] This seems to have been a common Bolshevik 
position at the time, with Stalin stressing in the same year 
that <i>"action only from 'below'"</i> was <i>"an anarchist principle, 
which does, indeed, fundamentally contradict Social-Democratic 
tactics."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 1, p. 149]
<p>
It is in this context of <i>"above and below"</i> in which we must
place Lenin's comments in 1917 that socialism was <i>"democracy
from below, without a police, without a standing army,
voluntary social duty by a <b>militia</b> formed from a universally
armed people."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 24, p. 170] Given 
that Lenin had rejected the idea of <i>"only from below"</i> as
an anarchist principle (which it is), we need to bear in
mind that this <i>"democracy from below"</i> was <b>always</b> placed 
in the context of a Bolshevik government. Lenin always 
stressed that the <b>Bolsheviks</b> would <i>"take over full state 
power,"</i> that they <i>"can and must take state power into their 
own hands."</i> His <i>"democracy from below"</i> always meant representative
government, <b>not</b> popular power or self-management. The role of 
the working class was that of voters and so the Bolsheviks' first 
task was <i>"to convince the majority of the people that its programme 
and tactics are correct."</i> The second task <i>"that confronted our 
Party was to capture political power."</i> The third task was for 
"the Bolshevik Party"</i> to <i>"<b>administer</b> Russia."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>, 
vol. 2, p. 352, p. 328 and p. 589] Thus Bolshevik power was
equated with working class power.
<p>
Towards the end of 1917, he stressed this vision of a Bolshevik
run <i>"democracy from below"</i> by arguing that <i>"[a]fter the 1905 
revolution Russia was ruled by 130,000 landowners . . . yet 
they tell us that Russia will not be able to be governed by 
the 240,000 members of the Bolshevik party."</i> He even equated 
rule by the party with rule by the class -- <i>"the power of the 
Bolsheviks -- that is, the power of the proletariat,"</i> while 
admitting that the proletariat could not actually govern itself. 
As he put it, <i>"[w]e know that just any labourer or any cook 
would be incapable of taking over immediately the administration 
of the State . . . We demand that the teaching of the business 
of government be conducted by the class-conscious workers and 
soldiers."</i> The <i>"conscious workers must be in control, but they
can attract to the actual work of management the real labouring 
and oppressed masses."</i> Ironically, he calls this system <i>"real 
popular self-administration"</i> and <i>"teaching the people to manage 
their own affairs."</i>  He also indicated that once in power, the 
Bolsheviks <i>"shall be fully and unreservedly for a strong 
government and centralism."</i> [<b>Will the Bolsheviks Maintain 
Power</b>, pp. 61-2, p. 66, p. 69 and p. 75] 
<p>
Clearly, Lenin's position had not changed. The goal of the 
revolution was simply a Bolshevik government, which, if it 
was to be effective, had to have the real power in society.
Thus, socialism would be implemented from above, by the 
<i>"strong"</i> government of the <i>"conscious workers"</i> who
would be <i>"in control."</i> While, eventually, the <i>"labouring"</i> 
masses would take part in the administration of state 
decisions, the initial role of the workers could be the
same as under capitalism. And, we must note, there is a
difference between making policy and taking part in 
administration (i.e. between the <i>"work of management"</i> 
and management itself), a difference Lenin obscures. 
<p>
All of which, perhaps, explains the famous leaflet 
addressed to the workers of Petrograd immediately after 
the October Revolution, informing that <i>"the revolution 
has won."</i> The workers were called upon to <i>"show . . . 
<b>the greatest firmness and endurance,</b> in order to 
facilitate the execution of all the aims of the new 
People's Government."</i> They were asked to <i>"cease 
immediately all economic and political strikes, to 
take up your work, and do it in perfect order . . . All 
to your places."</i> It stated that the <i>"best way to support 
the new Government of Soviets in these days"</i> was <i>"by 
doing your job."</i> [cited by John Read, <b>Ten Days that 
Shook the World</b>, pp. 341-2] Which smacks far more of
<i>"socialism from above"</i> than <i>"socialism from below"</i>!
<p>
The implications of Lenin's position became clearer after the 
Bolsheviks had taken power in 1917. In that situation, it
was not a case of <i>"dealing with the general question of 
principle, whether in the epoch of the democratic revolution
it is <b>admissible</b> to pass from pressure from below to
pressure from above."</i> [Lenin, <b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 24, 
p. 190] Rather, it was the concrete situation of a 
"revolutionary"</i> government exercising power <i>"from above"</i> 
onto the very class it claimed to represent. Thus we have a 
power over the working class which was quite happy to exercise 
coercion to ensure its position. As Lenin explained to his 
political police, the Cheka, in 1920:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed 
enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to
break down the resistance of these exploiters. On the other
hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards
the wavering and unstable elements among the masses 
themselves."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 42, p. 170]
</blockquote><p>
It could be argued that this position was forced on Lenin
by the problems facing the Bolsheviks in the Civil War, but
such an argument is flawed. This is for two reasons. Firstly,
according to Lenin himself civil war was inevitable and so,
unsurprisingly, Lenin considered his comments as universally
applicable. Secondly, this position fits in well with the idea 
of pressure <i>"from above"</i> exercised by the <i>"revolutionary"</i> 
government against the masses (and nothing to do with any 
sort of <i>"socialism from below"</i>). Indeed, <i>"wavering"</i> and 
<i>"unstable"</i> elements is just another way of saying <i>"pressure
from below,"</i> the attempts by those subject to the <i>"revolutionary"</i> 
government to influence its policies. As we noted in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a>, 
it was in this period (1919 and 1920) that the Bolsheviks
openly argued that the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> was, in
fact, the <i>"dictatorship of the party"</i> (see 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a> on how
the Bolsheviks modified the Marxist theory of the state in line
with this). Rather than the result of the problems facing Russia 
at the time, Lenin's comments simply reflect the unfolding of 
certain aspects of his ideology when his party held power (as
we make clear in the appendix on <a href="append44.html">"How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?"</a>, 
the ideology of the ruling party 
and the ideas held by the masses are also factors in history).
<p>
To show that Lenin's comments were not caused by circumstantial 
factors, we can turn to his infamous work <b>Left-Wing Communism</b>. 
In this 1920 tract, written for the Second Congress of the 
Communist International, Lenin lambasted those Marxists who 
argued for direct working class power against the idea of 
party rule (i.e. the various council communists around 
Europe). We have already noted in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a> that Lenin 
had argued in that work that it was <i>"ridiculously absurd and 
stupid"</i> to <i>"a contrast in general between the dictatorship of 
the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders."</i> [p. 25] 
Here we provide his description of the <i>"top-down"</i> nature of 
Bolshevik rule:
<p><blockquote><i>
"The interrelations between leaders-Party-class-masses . . .
now present themselves concretely in Russia in the following
form. The dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat 
which is organised in the Soviets and is led by the 
Communist Party . . . The Party, which holds annual 
congresses . . . is directed by a Central Committee of 
nineteen elected at the congress, while the current work
in Moscow [the capital] had to be carried on by [two] still
smaller bodies . . . which are elected at the plenary sessions
of the Central Committee, five members of the Central 
Committee in each bureau. This, then, looks like a real
'oligarchy.' Not a single important political or organisational
question is decided by any State institution in our republic
[sic!] without the guiding instructions of the Central 
Committee of the Party.
<p>
"In its work the Party relies directly on the <b>trade unions</b> 
. . . In reality, all the controlling bodies of the overwhelming
majority of the unions . . . consists of Communists, who 
secure the carrying out of all the instructions of the Party.
Thus . . . we have a . . . very powerful proletarian apparatus, 
by means of which the Party is closely linked up with the 
<b>class</b> and with <b>the masses,</b> and by means of which, under 
the leadership of the Party, the <b>class dictatorship</b> of the
class is realised."</i> [<b>Left-Wing Communism</b>, pp. 31-2]
</blockquote><p>
Combined with <i>"non-Party workers' and peasants' conferences"</i>
and Soviet Congresses, this was <i>"the general mechanism of
the proletarian state power viewed 'from above,' from the
standpoint of the practical realisation of the dictatorship"</i>
and so <i>"all talk about 'from above' or 'from below,' about
'the dictatorship of leaders' <b>or</b> 'the dictatorship of the
masses,' cannot but appear to be ridiculous, childish 
nonsense."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 33] Perhaps this explains why he
did not bother to view <i>"proletarian"</i> state power <i>"from below,"</i>
from the viewpoint of the proletariat? If he did, perhaps
he would have recounted the numerous strikes and protests
broken by the Cheka under martial law, the gerrymandering and
disbanding of soviets, the imposition of <i>"one-man management"</i>
onto the workers in production, the turning of the unions 
into agents of the state/party and the elimination of working 
class freedom by party power? After all, <b>if</b> the congresses 
of soviets were <i>"more democratic"</i> than anything in the <i>"best 
democratic republics of the bourgeois world,"</i> the Bolsheviks 
would have no need for non-Party conferences <i>"to be able to 
watch the mood of the masses, to come closer to them, to 
respond to their demands."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 33 and p. 32] How
the Bolsheviks <i>"responded"</i> to these conferences and their 
demands is extremely significant. They disbanded them. This
was because <i>"[d]uring the disturbances"</i> of late 1920, <i>"they
provided an effective platform for criticism of Bolshevik
policies."</i> Their frequency was decreased and they <i>"were 
discontinued soon afterward."</i> [Richard Sakwa, <b>Soviet 
Communists in Power</b>, p. 203]
<p>
At the Comintern congress itself, Zinoviev announced that 
<i>"the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time 
the dictatorship of the Communist Party."</i> [<b>Proceedings and 
Documents of the Second Congress 1920</b>, vol. 1, p. 152]
Trotsky, for his part, also universalised Lenin's argument
when he pondered the important decisions of the revolution
and who would make them in his reply to the anarchist delegate
from the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Who decides this question [and others like it]?  We have
the Council of People's Commissars but it has to be subject 
to some supervision. Whose supervision? That of the working
class as an amorphous, chaotic mass? No. The Central 
Committee of the party is convened to discuss . . . and to 
decide . . . Who will solve these questions in Spain? The
Communist Party of Spain."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 174]
</blockquote><p>
As is obvious, Trotsky was drawing general lessons for the
international revolutionary movement. Needless to say, he 
still argued that the <i>"working class, represented and led 
by the Communist Party, [was] in power here"</i> in spite of it 
being <i>"an amorphous, chaotic mass"</i> which did not make any 
decisions on important questions affecting the revolution!
<p>
Incidentally, his and Lenin's comments of 1920 disprove 
Trotsky's later assertion that it was <i>"[o]nly after the 
conquest of power, the end of the civil war, and the 
establishment of a stable regime"</i> when <i>"the Central 
Committee little by little begin to concentrate the 
leadership of Soviet activity in its hands. Then would 
come Stalin's turn."</i> [<b>Stalin</b>, vol. 1, p. 328] While it 
was definitely the <i>"conquest of power"</i> by the Bolsheviks 
which lead to the marginalisation of the soviets, this 
event cannot be shunted to after the civil war as Trotsky 
would like (particularly as Trotsky admitted that <i>"[a]fter 
eight months of inertia and of democratic chaos, came the 
dictatorship of the Bolsheviks."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 2, p. 242]). 
We must note (see sections 
<a href="secH1.html#sech12">H.1.2</a> or 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">H.3.8</a>) Trotsky argued 
for the <i>"objective necessity"</i> of the <i>"revolutionary 
dictatorship of a proletarian party"</i> until his death.
<p>
Clearly, the claim that Leninism (and its various off-shoots
like Trotskyism) is <i>"socialism from below"</i> is hard to take
seriously. As proven above, the Leninist tradition is explicitly
against the idea of <i>"only from below,"</i> with Lenin explicitly
stating that it was an <i>"anarchist stand"</i> to be for <i>"'action 
only from below', not 'from below and from above'"</i> which was 
the position of Marxism. [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 9, p. 77] 
Once in power, Lenin and the Bolsheviks implemented this vision
of <i>"from below and from above,"</i> with the highly unsurprising
result that <i>"from above"</i> quickly repressed <i>"from below"</i> (which
was dismissed as <i>"wavering"</i> by the masses). This was to be 
expected, for a government to enforce its laws, it has to have
power over its citizens and so socialism <i>"from above"</i> is a 
necessary side-effect of Leninist theory. 
<p>
Ironically, Lenin's argument in <b>State and Revolution</b> comes
back to haunt him. In that work he had argued that the 
<i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> meant <i>"democracy for the 
people"</i> which <i>"imposes a series of restrictions on the 
freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists."</i> 
These must be crushed <i>"in order to free humanity from 
wage-slavery; their resistance must be broken by force; 
it is clear that where there is suppression there is also 
violence, there is no freedom, no democracy."</i> [<b>Essential 
Works of Lenin</b>, pp. 337-8] If the working class itself 
is being subject to <i>"suppression"</i> then, clearly, there 
is <i>"no freedom, no democracy"</i> for that class -- and the 
people <i>"will feel no better if the stick with which they 
are being beaten is labelled 'the people's stick'."</i> 
[Bakunin, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 338]
<p>
Thus, when Leninists argue that they stand for the <i>"principles 
of socialism from below"</i> and state that this means the direct 
and democratic control of society by the working class then, 
clearly, they are being less than honest. Looking at the 
tradition they place themselves, the obvious conclusion which 
must be reached is that Leninism is <b>not</b> based on <i>"socialism 
from below"</i> in the sense of working class self-management of 
society (i.e. the only condition when the majority can <i>"rule"</i> 
and decisions truly flow from below upwards). At best, they 
subscribe to the distinctly bourgeois vision of <i>"democracy"</i> 
as being simply the majority designating (and trying to 
control) its rulers. At worse, they defend politics which 
have eliminated even this form of democracy in favour of 
party dictatorship and <i>"one-man management"</i> armed with 
<i>"dictatorial"</i> powers in industry (most members of such parties 
do not know how the Bolsheviks gerrymandered and disbanded 
soviets to maintain power, raised the dictatorship of the 
party to an ideological truism and wholeheartedly advocated 
<i>"one-man management"</i> rather than workers' self-management of 
production). As we discuss in 
<a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>, this latter 
position flows easily from the underlying assumptions of 
vanguardism which Leninism is based on.
<p>
So, Lenin, Trotsky and so on simply cannot be considered as
exponents of <i>"socialism from below."</i> Any one who makes such a
claim is either ignorant of the actual ideas and practice of 
Bolshevism or they seek to deceive. For anarchists, <i>"socialism 
from below"</i> can only be another name, like libertarian socialism, 
for anarchism (as Lenin, ironically enough, acknowledged). This 
does not mean that <i>"socialism from below,"</i> like <i>"libertarian 
socialism,"</i> is identical to anarchism, it simply means that 
libertarian Marxists and other socialists are far closer to 
anarchism than mainstream Marxism.
<p>
<a name="sech34"><h2>H.3.4 Don't anarchists just quote Marxists selectively?</h2>
<p>
No, far from it. While it is impossible to quote everything
a person or an ideology says, it is possible to summarise
those aspects of a theory which influenced the way it 
developed in practice. As such, <b>any</b> account is <i>"selective"</i> 
in some sense, the question is whether this results in a 
critiqued rooted in the ideology and its practice or whether 
it presents a picture at odds with both. As Maurice Brinton 
puts it in the introduction to his classic account of workers' 
control in the Russian Revolution:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Other charges will also be made. The quotations from Lenin
and Trotsky will not be denied but it will be stated that
they are 'selective' and that 'other things, too' were said.
Again, we plead guilty. But we would stress that there are 
hagiographers enough in the trade whose 'objectivity' . . . 
is but a cloak for sophisticated apologetics . . . It 
therefore seems more relevant to quote those statements of 
the Bolsheviks leaders of 1917 which helped determine Russia's 
evolution [towards Stalinism] rather those other statements 
which, like the May Day speeches of Labour leaders, were for 
ever to remain of rhetoric."</i> [<b>The Bolsheviks and Workers' 
Control</b>, p. xv]
</blockquote><p>
Hence the need to discuss all aspects of Marxism rather than
take what its adherents like to claim for it as granted. In 
this, we agree with Marx himself who argued that we cannot 
judge people by what they say about themselves but rather what 
they do. Unfortunately while many self-proclaimed Marxists 
(like Trotsky) may quote these comments, fewer apply them 
to their own ideology or actions (again, like Trotsky).
<p>
This can be seen from the almost ritualistic way many Marxists
response to anarchist (or other) criticisms of their ideas. 
When they complain that anarchists <i>"selectively"</i> quote from 
the leading proponents of Marxism, they are usually at pains 
to point people to some document which they have selected 
as being more <i>"representative"</i> of their tradition. Leninists 
usually point to Lenin's <b>State and Revolution</b>, for example,
for a vision of what Lenin <i>"really"</i> wanted. To this anarchists
reply by, as we discussed in section H.1.7 
(<a href="secH1.html#sech17">Haven't you read 
Lenin's <i>"State and Revolution"</i>?</a>), pointing out that much of 
that passes for 'Marxism' in <b>State and Revolution</b> is anarchist 
and, equally important, it was not applied in practice. This
explains an apparent contradiction. Leninists point to the 
Russian Revolution as evidence for the democratic nature of 
their politics. Anarchists point to it as evidence of Leninism's 
authoritarian nature. Both can do this because there is a 
substantial difference between Bolshevism before it took power 
and afterwards. While the Leninists ask you to judge them by 
their manifesto, anarchists say judge them by their record! 
<p>
Simply put, Marxists quote selectively from their own 
tradition, ignoring those aspects of it which would be
unappealing to potential recruits. While the leaders may 
know their tradition has skeletons in its closet, they 
try their best to ensure no one else gets to know. Which, 
of course, explains their hostility to anarchists doing so! 
That there is a deep divide between aspects of Marxist 
rhetoric and its practice and that even its rhetoric is
not consistent we will now prove. By so doing, we can show
that anarchists do not, in fact, quote Marxist's <i>"selectively."</i>
<p>
As an example, we can point to the leading Bolshevik Grigorii
Zinoviev. In 1920, as head of the Communist International he
wrote a letter to the Industrial Workers of the World, a
revolutionary labour union, which stated that the <i>"Russian 
Soviet Republic. . . is the most highly centralised government 
that exists. It is also the most democratic government in 
history. For all the organs of government are in constant 
touch with the working masses, and constantly sensitive to 
their will."</i> [<b>Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 
1920</b>, vol. 2, p. 928] The same year, he explained in a
Communist journal that <i>"soviet rule in Russia could not 
have been maintained for three years -- not even three weeks 
-- without the iron dictatorship of the Communist Party. Any 
class conscious worker must understand that the dictatorship 
of the working class can by achieved only by the dictatorship 
of its vanguard, i.e., by the Communist Party . . . All 
questions . . ., on which the fate of the proletarian 
revolution depends absolutely, are decided . . . in the 
framework of the party organisations."</i> [quoted by Oskar 
Anweiler, <b>The Soviets</b>, pp. 239-40] It seems redundant to
note that the second quote is the accurate one, the one
which matches the reality of Bolshevik Russia. Therefore
it is hardly <i>"selective"</i> to quote the latter and not the
former, rather it expresses what was actually happening.
<p>
This duality and the divergence between practice and rhetoric
comes to the fore when Trotskyists discuss Stalinism and try
to counter pose the Leninist tradition to it. For example, 
we find the British SWP's Chris Harman arguing that the <i>"whole 
experience of the workers' movement internationally teaches 
that only by regular elections, combined with the right of 
recall by shop-floor meetings can rank-and-file delegates be 
made really responsible to those who elect them."</i> [<b>Bureaucracy 
and Revolution in Eastern Europe</b>, pp. 238-9] Significantly,
Harman does not mention that both Lenin and Trotsky rejected
this experience (see 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a> for a full discussion on
how Leninism argues for state power explicitly to eliminate
such control from below). How can Trotsky's comment that the
<i>"revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is . . . 
an objective necessity"</i> be reconciled with it? And what of 
the claim that the <i>"revolutionary party (vanguard) which 
renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the 
counter-revolution"</i>? [<b>Writings 1936-37</b>, pp. 513-4] Or his 
similar argument sixteen years earlier that the Party was 
<i>"entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship 
clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy"</i>? 
[quoted by Maurice Brinton, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 78]
<p>
The ironies do not stop there, of course. Harman correctly notes 
that under Stalinism, the <i>"bureaucracy is characterised, like the 
private capitalist class in the West, by its control over the 
means of production."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 147] However, he fails to
note that it was <b>Lenin,</b> in early 1918, who had raised and then
implemented such <i>"control"</i> in the form of <i>"one-man management."</i>
As he put it: <i>"Obedience, and unquestioning obedience at that, 
during work to the one-man decisions of Soviet directors, of 
the dictators elected or appointed by Soviet institutions, 
vested with dictatorial powers."</i> [<b>Six Theses on the Immediate 
Tasks of the Soviet Government</b>, p. 44] To <b>fail</b> to note this
link between Lenin and the Stalinist bureaucracy on this issue
is quoting <i>"selectively."</i> 
<p>
The contradictions pile up. He argues that <i>"people who seriously 
believe that workers at the height of revolution need a police 
guard to stop them handing their factories over to capitalists 
certainly have no real faith in the possibilities of a socialist 
future."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 144] Yet this does not stop him praising 
the regime of Lenin and Trotsky and contrasting it with Stalinism, 
in spite of the fact that this was precisely what the Bolsheviks 
<b>did</b> from 1918 onwards! Indeed this tyrannical practice played a 
role in provoking the strikes in Petrograd which preceded the 
Kronstadt revolt in 1921, when <i>"the workers wanted the special 
squads of armed Bolsheviks, who carried out a purely police 
function, withdrawn from the factories."</i> Paul Avrich, <b>Kronstadt 
1921</b>, p. 42] It seems equally strange that Harman denounces
the Stalinist suppression of the Hungarian revolution for
workers' democracy and socialism while he defends the Bolshevik 
suppression of the Kronstadt revolt for the same goals (and 
as we discuss in <a href="append42.html">"What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?"</a>, 
the rationales both regimes used 
to justify their actions were akin).
<p>
Similarly, when Harman argues that if by <i>"political party"</i> it
is <i>"meant a party of the usual sort, in which a few leaders 
give orders and the masses merely obey . . . then certainly
such organisations added nothing to the Hungarian revolution."</i>
However, as we discuss in 
<a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>, such a party 
was <b>precisely</b> what Leninism argued for and applied in 
practice. Simply put, the Bolsheviks were never a party <i>"that 
stood for the councils taking power."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 186
and p. 187] As Lenin repeatedly stressed, its aim was for 
the Bolshevik party to take power <b>through</b> the councils 
(see <a href="secH3.html#sech311">section H.3.11</a>). 
<p>
This confusion between what was promised and what was done 
is a common feature of Leninism. Felix Morrow, for example,
wrote what is usually considered the definitive Trotskyist
work on the Spanish Revolution (in spite of it being, as we 
discuss in the appendix <i><a href="append32.html">"Marxists and Spanish Anarchism,"</a></i> 
deeply flawed). In that work he states that the <i>"essential 
points of a revolutionary program [are] all power to the 
working class, and democratic organs of the workers, 
peasants and combatants, as the expression of the workers' 
power."</i> [<b>Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain</b>, p. 133] 
How this can be reconciled with Trotsky's comment, written 
in the same year, that <i>"a revolutionary party, even after 
seizing power . . . is still by no means the sovereign ruler 
of society."</i>? Or the opinion that it was <i>"only thanks to 
the party dictatorship [that] were the Soviets able to lift 
themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the
state form of the proletariat"</i>? [<b>Stalinism and Bolshevism</b>] 
Or Lenin's
opinion that <i>"an organisation taking in the whole proletariat 
cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship"</i> and that 
it <i>"can be exercised only by a vanguard"</i>? [<b>Collected Works</b>, 
vol. 32, p. 21] How can the working class <i>"have all power"</i>
if power is held by a vanguard party? Particularly when this
party has power specifically to enable it <i>"overcom[e] the 
vacillation of the masses themselves."</i> [Trotsky, <b>The 
Moralists and Sycophants</b>, p. 59]
<p>
Given all this, who is quoting who <i>"selectively"</i>? The Marxists
who ignore what the Bolsheviks did when in power and repeatedly
point to Lenin's <b>State and Revolution</b> or the anarchists who 
link what they did with what they said outside of that holy text?
Considering this absolutely contradictory inheritance, anarchists
feel entitled to ask the question <i>"Will the real Leninist please 
stand up?"</i> What is it to be, popular democracy or party rule? If
we look at Bolshevik practice, the answer is the latter. As we
discuss in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a>, 
the likes of Lenin and Trotsky concur,
incorporating the necessity of party power into their ideology
as a lesson of the revolution. As such, anarchists do not feel
they are quoting Leninism <i>"selectively"</i> when they argue that it 
is based on party power, not working class self-management. That
Leninists often publicly deny this aspect of their own ideology
or, at best, try to rationalise and justify it, suggests that 
when push comes to shove (as it does in every revolution) they
will make the same decisions and act in the same way!
<p>
In addition there is the question of what could be called the
<i>"social context."</i> Marxists often accuse anarchists of failing 
to place the quotations and actions of, say, the Bolsheviks 
into the circumstances which generated them. By this they mean
that Bolshevik authoritarianism can be explained purely in 
terms of the massive problems facing them (i.e. the rigours 
of the Civil War, the economic collapse and chaos in Russia
and so on). As we discuss this question in 
<a href="append43.html">"What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?"</a>, we 
will simply summarise the anarchist reply by noting that this
argument has three major problems with it. Firstly, there is 
the problem that Bolshevik authoritarianism started <b>before</b> 
the start of the Civil War (as we discuss in 
the appendix on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>) and,
moreover, continued <b>after</b> its ends. As such, the Civil War
cannot be blamed. The second problem is simply that Lenin 
continually stressed that civil war and economic chaos was 
inevitable during a revolution. If Leninist politics cannot 
handle the inevitable then they are to be avoided. Equally,
if Leninists blame what they should <b>know</b> is inevitable for
the degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution it would suggest
their understanding of what revolution entails is deeply 
flawed. The last problem is simply that the Bolsheviks did
not care. As Samuel Farber notes, <i>"there is no evidence 
indicating that Lenin or any of the mainstream Bolshevik 
leaders lamented the loss of workers' control or of 
democracy in the soviets, or at least referred to these
losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared with the replacement
of War Communism by NEP in 1921."</i> [<b>Before Stalinism</b>, p. 44]
Hence the continuation (indeed, intensification) of Bolshevik
authoritarianism after their victory in the civil war. Given 
this, it is significant that many of the quotes from Trotsky 
given above date from the late 1930s. To argue, therefore, 
that <i>"social context"</i> explains the politics and actions of 
the Bolsheviks seems incredulous. 
<p>
Lastly, it seems ironic that Marxists accuse anarchists of
quoting <i>"selectively."</i> After all, as proven in 
<a href="secH2.html">section H.2</a>,
this is <b>exactly</b> what Marxists do to anarchism! Indeed, 
anarchists often make good propaganda out of such activity
by showing how selective their accounts are and how at odds
they are with want anarchism actually stands for and what
anarchists actually do (see the appendix of our FAQ on
<a href="append3.html"><i>"Anarchism and Marxism"</i></a>).
<p>
In summary, rather than quote <i>"selectively"</i> from the works 
and practice of Marxism, anarchists summarise those tendencies 
of both which, we argue, contribute to its continual failure in 
practice as a revolutionary theory. Moreover, Marxists themselves
are equally as <i>"selective"</i> as anarchists in this respect. Firstly,
as regards anarchist theory and practice and, secondly, as regards
their own. 
<p>
<a name="sech35"><h2>H.3.5 Has Marxist appropriation of anarchist ideas changed it?</h2>
<p>
As is obvious in any account of the history of socialism, 
Marxists (of various schools) have appropriated key anarchist 
ideas and (often) present them as if Marxists thought of them 
first. 
<p>
For example, as we discuss in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech310">section H.3.10</a>, it was anarchists 
who first raised the idea of smashing the bourgeois state and 
replacing it with the fighting organisations of the working 
class (such as unions, workers' councils, etc.). It was only 
in 1917, decades after anarchists had first raised the idea, 
that Marxists started to argue these ideas but, of course, 
with a twist. While anarchists meant that working class 
organisations would be the basis of a free society, Lenin 
saw these organs as the best means of achieving Bolshevik 
party power. 
<p>
Similarly with the libertarian idea of the <i>"militant 
minority."</i> By this, anarchists and syndicalists meant 
groups of workers who gave an example by their direct 
action which their fellow workers could imitate (for 
example by leading wildcat strikes which would use 
flying pickets to get other workers to join in). This 
"militant minority"</i> would be at the forefront of social 
struggle and would show, by example, practice and 
discussion, that their ideas and tactics were the 
correct ones. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, 
Bolsheviks argued that this idea was similar to their 
idea of a vanguard party. This ignored two key differences.
Firstly that the libertarian <i>"militant minority"</i> did not 
aim to take power on behalf of the working class but 
rather to encourage it, by example, to manage its own 
struggles and affairs (and, ultimately, society). 
Secondly, that <i>"vanguard parties"</i> are organised in 
hierarchical ways alien to the spirit of anarchism. While
both the <i>"militant minority"</i> and <i>"vanguard party"</i> approaches
are based on an appreciation of the uneven development of 
ideas within the working class, vanguardism transforms this 
into a justification for party rule <b>over</b> the working class 
by a so-called <i>"advanced"</i> minority (see 
<a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a> for a
full discussion). Other concepts, such as <i>"workers' control,"</i> 
direct action, and so on have suffered a similar fate.
<p>
As such, while Marxists have appropriated certain anarchist
concepts, it does not mean that they mean exactly the same
thing by them. Rather, as history shows, radically different
concepts can be hidden behind similar sounding rhetoric. As
Murray Bookchin argued, many Marxist tendencies <i>"attach 
basically alien ideas to the withering conceptual framework 
of Marxism -- not to say anything new but to preserve 
something old with ideological formaldehyde -- to the 
detriment of any intellectual growth that the distinctions
are designed to foster. This is mystification at its worst,
for it not only corrupts ideas but the very capacity of the
mind to deal with them. If Marx's work can be rescued for
our time, it will be by dealing with it as an invaluable
part of the development of ideas, not as pastiche that is
legitimated as a 'method' or continually 'updated' by 
concepts that come from an alien zone of ideas."</i> [<b>Toward
an Ecological Society</b>, p. 242f]
<p>
This is not some academic point. The ramifications of Marxists
appropriating such <i>"alien ideas"</i> (or, more correctly, the 
rhetoric associated with those ideas) has had negative impacts
on actual revolutionary movements. For example, Lenin's 
definition of <i>"workers' control"</i> was radically different than
that current in the factory committee movement during the
Russian Revolution (which had more in common with anarchist
and syndicalist use of the term). The similarities in rhetoric,
allowed the factory committee movement to put its weight behind 
the Bolsheviks. Once in power, Lenin's position was implemented
while that of the factory committees was ignored. Ultimately,
Lenin's position was a key factor in creating state capitalism
rather than socialism in Russia (see 
<a href="secH3.html#sech314">section H.3.14</a> for more
details). 
<p>
This, of course, does not stop modern day Leninists appropriating 
the term workers' control <i>"without bating an eyelid. Seeking to 
capitalise on the confusion of now rampant in the movement, these 
people talk of 'workers' control' as if a) they meant by those 
words what the politically unsophisticated mean (i.e. that working 
people should themselves decide about the fundamental matters 
relating to production) and b) as if they -- and the Leninist 
doctrine to which they claim to adhere -- had always supported 
demands of this kind, or as if Leninism had always seen in workers'
control the universally valid foundation of a new social order,
rather than just a <b>slogan</b> to be used for manipulatory purposes 
in specific and very limited historical contexts."</i> [Maurice 
Brinton, <b>The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control</b>, p. iv] 
<a href="secH4.html#sech314">Section H.3.14</a> discusses this further.
<p>
Thus the fact that Leninists have appropriated libertarian (and 
working class) ideas and demands does not, in fact, mean that we 
aim for the same thing (as we discuss in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech31">section H.3.1</a>, this is 
far from the case). The use of anarchist/popular rhetoric and 
slogans means little and we need to look at the content of the 
ideas proposed. Given the legacy of the appropriation of 
libertarian terminology to popularise authoritarian parties and 
its subsequent jettison in favour of authoritarian policies once 
the party is in power, anarchists have strong grounds to take
Leninist claims with a large pinch of salt!
<p>
Equally with examples of actual revolutions. As Martin Buber
notes, while <i>"Lenin praises Marx for having 'not yet, in
1852, put the concrete question as to what should be set up
in place of the State machinery after it had been abolished,'"</i>
Lenin argued that <i>"it was only the Paris Commune that taught
Marx this."</i> However, as Buber correctly points out, the Paris
Commune <i>"was the realisation of the thoughts of people who had
put this question very concretely indeed . . . the historical
experience of the Commune became possible only because in the
hearts of passionate revolutionaries there lived the picture of
a decentralised, very much 'de-Stated'  society, which picture
they undertook to translate into reality. The spiritual fathers
of the Commune had such that ideal aiming at decentralisation
which Marx and Engels did not have, and the leaders of the
Revolution of 1871 tried, albeit with inadequate powers, to
begin the realisation of that idea in the midst of revolution."</i>
[<b>Paths in Utopia</b>, pp. 103-4] Thus, while the Paris Commune
and other working class revolts are praised, their obvious 
anarchistic elements (as predicted by anarchist thinkers)
are not mentioned. This results in some strange dichotomies.
For example, Bakunin's vision of revolution is based on
a federation of workers' councils, predating Marxist support
for such bodies by decades, yet Marxists argue that Bakunin's 
ideas have nothing to teach us. Or, the Paris Commune being 
praised by Marxists as the first <i>"dictatorship of the 
proletariat"</i> when it implements federalism, delegates being 
subjected to mandates and recall and raises the vision of a 
socialism of associations while anarchism is labelled 
"petit-bourgeois"</i> in spite of the fact that these ideas can 
be found in works of Proudhon and Bakunin which predate the 
1871 revolt!
<p>
From this, we can draw two facts. Firstly, anarchism has 
successfully predicted certain aspects of working class
revolution. Anarchist K.J. Kenafick stated the obvious when
he argues that any <i>"comparison will show that the programme 
set out [by the Paris Commune] is . . . the system of Federalism, 
which Bakunin had been advocating for years, and which had first 
been enunciated by Proudhon. The Proudhonists . . . exercised 
considerable influence in the Commune. This 'political form' 
was therefore not 'at last' discovered; it had been discovered 
years ago; and now it was proven to be correct by the very fact 
that in the crisis the Paris workers adopted it almost 
automatically, under the pressure of circumstance, rather 
than as the result of theory, as being the form most suitable 
to express working class aspirations."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin and 
Karl Marx</b>, pp. 212-3] Thus, rather than being somehow alien
to the working class and its struggle for freedom, anarchism
in fact bases itself on the class struggle. This means that
it should come as no surprise when the ideas of anarchism are 
developed and applied by those in struggle, for those ideas 
are just generalisations derived from past working class 
struggles! If anarchism ideas are applied spontaneously by
those in struggle, it is because those involved are themselves 
drawing similar conclusions from their own experiences. 
<p>
The other fact is that while mainstream Marxism often appropriated 
certain aspects of libertarian theory and practice, it does 
so selectively and places them into an authoritarian context 
which undermines their libertarian nature. Hence anarchist 
support for workers councils becomes transformed into a means 
to ensure party power (i.e. state authority) rather than working 
class power or self-management (i.e. no authority). Similarly, 
anarchist support for leading by example becomes transformed 
into support for party rule (and often dictatorship). Ultimately, 
the practice of mainstream Marxism shows that libertarian ideas 
cannot be transplanted selectively into an authoritarian ideology 
and be expected to blossom. Significantly, those Marxists who <b>do</b> 
apply anarchist ideas honestly are usually labelled by their
orthodox comrades as <i>"anarchists."</i> 
<p>
As an example of Marxists appropriating libertarian ideas 
honestly, we can point to the council communist and currents
within autonomist Marxism. The council communists broke with
the Bolsheviks over the question of whether the party would
exercise power or whether the workers' councils would. Needless
to say, Lenin labelled them an <i>"anarchist deviation."</i> Currents 
within Autonomist Marxism have built upon the council communist 
tradition, stressing the importance of focusing analysis on 
working class struggle as the key dynamic in capitalist society. 
<p>
In this they go against the mainstream Marxist orthodoxy and 
embrace a libertarian perspective. As libertarian socialist 
Cornelius Castoriadis argued, <i>"the economic theory expounded 
[by Marx] in <b>Capital</b> is based on the postulate that capitalism 
has managed completely and effectively to transform the worker -- 
who only appears there only as labour power -- into a commodity; 
therefore the use value of labour power -- the use the capitalist 
makes of it -- is, as for any commodity, completely determined 
by the use, since its exchange value -- wages -- is determined 
solely by the laws of the market . . . This postulate is 
necessary for there to be a 'science of economics' along the 
physico-mathematical model Marx followed . . . But he contradicts 
the most essential fact of capitalism, namely, that the use value 
and exchange value of labour power are objectively indeterminate; 
they are determined rather by the struggle between labour and 
capital both in production and in society. Here is the ultimate 
root of the 'objective' contradictions of capitalism . . . The 
paradox is that Marx, the 'inventor' of class struggle, wrote a 
monumental work on phenomena determined by this struggle in which 
the struggle itself was entirely absent."</i> [<b>Political and Social 
Writings</b>, vol. 2, p. 203] Castoriadis explained the limitations 
of Marx's vision most famously in his <i>"Modern Capitalism and 
Revolution."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 226-343]
<p>
By rejecting this heritage which mainstream Marxism bases itself
on and stressing the role of class struggle, Autonomist Marxism
breaks decisively with the Marxist mainstream and embraces a 
position previously associated with anarchists and other libertarian
socialists. The key role of class struggle in invalidating all 
deterministic economic <i>"laws"</i> was expressed by French syndicalists 
at the start of the twentieth century. This insight predated the 
work of Castoriadis and the development of Autonomist Marxism by 
over 50 years and is worth quoting at length:
<p><blockquote><i>
"the keystone of socialism [. . .] proclaimed that 'as a 
general rule, the average wage would be no more than what 
the worker strictly required for survival'. And it was said: 
'That figure is governed by capitalist pressure alone and this 
can even push it below the minimum necessary for the working 
man's subsistence . . . The only rule with regard to wage 
levels is the plentiful or scarce supply of man-power . . .'
<p>
"By way of evidence of the relentless operation of this law 
of wages, comparisons were made between the worker and a 
commodity: if there is a glut of potatoes on the market, 
they are cheap; if they are scarce, the price rises . . . It 
is the same with the working man, it was said: his wages 
fluctuate in accordance with the plentiful supply or dearth 
of labour! 
<p>
"No voice was raised against the relentless arguments of this 
absurd reasoning: so the law of wages may be taken as right 
. . . for as long as the working man [or woman] is content to 
be a commodity! For as long as, like a sack of potatoes, she 
remains passive and inert and endures the fluctuations of the 
market . . . For as long as he bends his back and puts up with 
all of the bosses' snubs, . . . the law of wages obtains. 
<p>
"But things take a different turn the moment that a glimmer of 
consciousness stirs this worker-potato into life. When, instead 
off dooming himself to inertia, spinelessness, resignation and 
passivity, the worker wakes up to his worth as a human being 
and the spirit of revolt washes over him: when he bestirs himself, 
energetic, wilful and active . . . [and] once the labour bloc 
comes to life and bestirs itself . . . then, the laughable 
equilibrium of the law of wages is undone."</i> [Emile Pouget, 
<b>Direct Action</b>]
</blockquote><p>
And Marx, indeed, had compared the worker to a commodity,
stating that labour power <i>"is a commodity, neither more
nor less than sugar. The former is measured by the clock,
the latter by the scale."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels Selected Works</b>,
p. 72] However, as Castoridas argued, unlike sugar the
extraction of the use value of labour power <i>"is not a
technical operation; it is a process of bitter struggle
in which half the time, so to speak, the capitalists 
turn out to be losers."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 248] A fact which
Pouget stressed in his critique of the mainstream 
socialist position:
<p><blockquote><i>
"A novel factor has appeared on the labour market: the will 
of the worker! And this factor, not pertinent when it comes 
to setting the price of a bushel of potatoes, has a bearing 
upon the setting of wages; its impact may be large or small, 
according to the degree of tension of the labour force which 
is a product of the accord of individual wills beating in 
unison -- but, whether it be strong or weak, there is no 
denying it. 
<p>
"Thus, worker cohesion conjures up against capitalist might a 
might capable of standing up to it. The inequality between the 
two adversaries -- which cannot be denied when the exploiter is 
confronted only by the working man on his own -- is redressed in
proportion with the degree of cohesion achieved by the labour 
bloc. From then on, proletarian resistance, be it latent or 
acute, is an everyday phenomenon: disputes between labour and 
capital quicken and become more acute. Labour does not always 
emerge victorious from these partial struggles: however, even 
when defeated, the struggle workers still reap some benefit: 
resistance from them has obstructed pressure from the employers 
and often forced the employer to grant some of the demands put."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>]
</blockquote><p>
The best currents of autonomist Marxism share this anarchist
stress on the power of working people to transform society 
and to impact on how capitalism operates. Unsurprisingly,
most autonomist Marxists reject the idea of the vanguard 
party and instead, like the council communists, stress the
need for <b>autonomist</b> working class self-organisation and
self-activity (hence the name!). They agree with Pouget
when he argued that <i>"Direct action spells liberation for the 
masses of humanity . . . [It] puts paid to the age of miracles 
-- miracles from Heaven, miracles from the State -- and, in 
contraposition to hopes vested in 'providence' (no matter 
what they may be) it announces that it will act upon the 
maxim: salvation lies within ourselves!"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>] As such,
they draw upon anarchistic ideas and rhetoric (for many, 
undoubtedly unknowingly) and draw anarchistic conclusions.
This can be seen from the works of the leading US Autonomist 
Marxist Harry Cleaver. His excellent essay <i>"Kropotkin,
Self-Valorisation and the Crisis of Marxism"</i> is by far the
best Marxist account of Kropotkin's ideas and shows the 
similarities between communist-anarchism and autonomist
Marxism. [<b>Anarchist Studies</b>, vol.2 , no. 2, pp. 119-36]
Both, he points out, share a <i>"common perception and sympathy 
for the power of workers to act autonomously"</i> regardless of 
the <i>"substantial differences"</i> on other issues. [<b>Reading 
Capital Politically</b>, p. 15]
<p>
As such, the links between the best Marxists and anarchism 
can be substantial. This means that some Marxists have taken
on board many anarchist ideas and have forged a version of
Marxism which is basically libertarian in nature. Unfortunately,
such forms of Marxism have always been a minority current 
within it. Most cases have seen the appropriation of anarchist
ideas by Marxists simply as part of an attempt to make mainstream, 
authoritarian Marxism more appealing and such borrowings have
been quickly forgotten once power has been seized.
<p>
Therefore appropriation of rhetoric and labels should not be
confused with similarity of goals and ideas. The list of groupings
which have used inappropriate labels to associate their ideas
with other, more appealing, ones is lengthy. Content is what
counts. If libertarian sounding ideas <b>are</b> being raised, the
question becomes one of whether they are being used simply 
to gain influence or whether they signify a change of heart.
As Bookchin argues:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Ultimately, a line will have to be drawn that, by definition,
excludes any project that can tip decentralisation to the 
side of centralisation, direct democracy to the side of
delegated power, libertarian institutions to the side of
bureaucracy, and spontaneity to the side of authority. Such
a line, like a physical barrier, must irrevocably separate
a libertarian zone of theory and practice from the 
hybridised socialisms that tend to denature it. This zone
must build its anti-authoritarian, utopian, and revolutionary
commitments into the very recognition it has of itself, in
short, into the very way it defines itself. . . . to admit 
of domination is to cross the line that separates the 
libertarian zone from the [state] socialist."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
pp. 223-4]

</blockquote><p>
Unless we know exactly what we aim for, how to get there and 
who our <b>real</b> allies are we will get a nasty surprise once 
our self-proclaimed "allies" take power. As such, any attempt 
to appropriate anarchist rhetoric into an authoritarian ideology 
will simply fail and become little more than a mask obscuring 
the real aims of the party in question. As history shows.
<p>
<a name="sech36"><h2>H.3.6 Is Marxism the only revolutionary politics which  have worked?</h2>
<p>
Some Marxists will dismiss our arguments, and anarchism, out 
of hand. This is because anarchism has not lead a <i>"successful"</i>
revolution while Marxism has. The fact, they assert, that 
there has never been a serious anarchist revolutionary 
movement, let alone an anarchist revolution, in the whole 
of history proves that Marxism works. For some Marxists, 
practice determines validity. Whether something is true 
or not is not decided intellectually in wordy publications 
and debates, but in reality. 
<p>
For Anarchists, such arguments simply show the ideological
nature of most forms of Marxism. The fact is, of course,
that there has been many anarchistic revolutions which,
while ultimately defeated, show the validity of anarchist 
theory (the ones in Spain and in the Ukraine being the
most significant). Moreover, there have been serious 
revolutionary anarchist movements across the world, the
majority of them crushed by state repression (usually
fascist or communist based). However, this is not the most 
important issue, which is the fate of these <i>"successful"</i> 
Marxist movements and revolution. The fact that there has 
never been a "Marxist" revolution which has not become a 
party dictatorship proves the need to critique Marxism.
<p>
So, given that Marxists argue that Marxism is <b>the</b> 
revolutionary working class political theory, its actual 
track record has been appalling. After all, while many 
Marxist parties have taken part in revolutions and even 
seized power, the net effect of their "success" have been 
societies bearing little or no relationship to socialism. 
Rather, the net effect of these revolutions has been to 
discredit socialism by associating it with one-party 
states presiding over state capitalist economies. 
<p>
Equally, the role of Marxism in the labour movement has 
also been less than successful. Looking at the first 
Marxist movement, social democracy, it ended by becoming 
reformist, betraying socialist ideas by (almost always) 
supporting their own state during the First World War 
and going so far as crushing the German revolution and 
betraying the Italian factory occupations in 1920. Indeed, 
Trotsky stated that the Bolshevik party was <i>"the only 
revolutionary"</i> section of the Second International, 
which is a damning indictment of Marxism. [<b>Stalin</b>, 
vol. 1, p. 248] Just as damning is the fact that neither 
Lenin or Trotsky noticed it! Indeed, Lenin praised the 
<i>"fundamentals of parliamentary tactics"</i> of German and 
International Social Democracy, expressing the opinion 
that they were <i>"at the same time implacable on questions 
of principle and always directed to the accomplishment of 
the final aim"</i> in his obituary of August Bebel in 1913! 
[Marx, Engels and Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, 
p. 248] For those that way inclined, some amusement can be 
gathered comparing Engels glowing predictions for these 
parties and their actual performance (in the case of Spain 
and Italy, his comments seem particularly ironic).
<p>
As regards Bolshevism itself, the one "revolutionary" party 
in the world, it avoided the fate of its sister parties 
simply because there no question of applying social
democratic tactics within bourgeois institutions as 
these did not exist. Moreover, the net result of its 
seizure of power was, first, a party dictatorship and 
state capitalism under Lenin, then the creation of 
Stalinism and a host of Trotskyist sects who spend a 
considerable amount of time justifying and rationalising 
the ideology and actions of the Bolsheviks which helped 
create the Stalinism (see the appendix on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> 
for a discussion). 
<p>
Clearly, a key myth of Marxism is the idea that it has been 
a successful movement. In reality, its failures have been 
consistent and devastating so suggesting its time to 
re-evaluate the whole ideology and embrace a revolutionary 
theory like anarchism. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration 
to argue that every <i>"success"</i> of Marxism has, in fact, proved 
that the anarchist critique of Marxism was correct. Thus, as 
Bakunin predicted, the Social-Democratic parties became 
reformist and the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> became 
the <i>"dictatorship <b>over</b> the proletariat."</i> With "victories" 
like these, Marxism does not need failures! Thus Murray 
Bookchin:
<p><blockquote><i>
"A theory which is so readily 'vulgarised,' 'betrayed,' or, 
more sinisterly, institutionalised into bureaucratic power 
by nearly all its adherents may well be one that lends 
itself to such 'vulgarisations,' 'betrayals,' and bureaucratic
forms <b>as a normal condition of its existence.</b> What may
seem to be 'vulgarisations, 'betrayals,' and bureaucratic
manifestations of its tenets in the heated light of doctrinal
disputes may prove to be the fulfilment of its tenets in the
cold light of historical development."</i> [<b>Toward an Ecological
Society</b>, p. 196]
</blockquote><p>
Hence the overwhelming need to critically evaluate Marxist 
ideas and history (such as the Russian Revolution -- see 
the appendix on <a href="append4.html">"The Russian Revolution"</a>). Unless we honestly discuss and 
evaluate all aspects of revolutionary ideas, we will never 
be able to build a positive and constructive revolutionary 
movement. By seeking the roots of Marxism's problems, we
can enrich anarchism by avoiding possible pitfalls and 
recognising and building upon its strengths (i.e. where 
anarchists have identified, however incompletely, problems 
in Marxism which bear on revolutionary ideas, practice and 
transformation).
<p>
If this is done, anarchists are sure that Marxist claims 
that Marxism is <b>the</b> revolutionary theory will be exposed 
for the baseless rhetoric they are. 
<p>
<a name="sech37"><h2>H.3.7 What is wrong with the Marxist theory of the state?</h2>
<p>
For anarchists, the idea that a state (any state) can be 
used for socialist ends is simply ridiculous. This is 
because of the nature of the state as an instrument of 
minority class rule. As such, it precludes the mass 
participation required for socialism and would create 
a new form of class society.
<p>
As we discussed in <a href="secB2.html">section B.2</a>, the state is defined 
by certain characteristics (most importantly, the 
centralisation of power into the hands of a few). 
Thus, for anarchists, <i>"the word 'State' . . . 
should be reserved for those societies with the 
hierarchical system and centralisation."</i> [Peter 
Kropotkin, <b>Ethics</b>, p. 317f] This defining feature 
of the state has not come about by chance. As Kropotkin 
argued in his classic history of the state, <i>"a social 
institution cannot lend itself to <b>all</b> the desired 
goals, since, as with every organ, [the state] developed 
according to the function it performed, in a definite 
direction and not in all possible directions."</i> This 
means, by <i>"seeing the State as it has been in history, 
and as it is in essence today"</i> the conclusion anarchists 
<i>"arrive at is for the abolition of the State."</i> Thus the 
state has <i>"developed in the history of human societies 
to prevent the direct association among men [and women] 
to shackle the development of local and individual
initiative, to crush existing liberties, to prevent their
new blossoming -- all this in order to subject the masses
to the will of minorities."</i> [<b>The State: Its Historic Role</b>, 
p. 56] 
<p>
So if the state, as Kropotkin stresses, is defined by <i>"the 
existence of a power situated above society, but also of a 
<b>territorial concentration</b> as well as the concentration 
<b>in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of 
societies</b>"</i> then such a structure has not evolved by chance. 
Therefore <i>"the pyramidal organisation which is the essence 
of the State"</i> simply <i>"cannot lend itself to a function 
opposed to the one for which it was developed in the 
course of history,"</i> such as the popular participation from
below required by social revolution and socialism. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 10, p. 59 and p. 56] Based on this evolutionary analysis
of the state, Kropotkin, like all anarchists, drew the
conclusion <i>"that the State organisation, having been the
force to which the minorities resorted for establishing 
and organising their power over the masses, cannot be the
force which will serve to destroy these privileges."</i> 
[<b>Evolution and Environment</b>, p. 82] 
<p>
This does <b>not</b> mean that anarchists dismiss differences 
between types of state, think the state has not changed 
over time or refuse to see that different states exist 
to defend different ruling minorities. Far from it. 
Anarchists argue that <i>"[e]very economic phase has a 
political phase corresponding to it, and it would be 
impossible to touch private property unless a new mode 
of political life be found at the same time."</i> <i>"A society 
founded on serfdom,"</i> Kropotkin explained, <i>"is in keeping 
with absolute monarchy; a society based on the wage system, 
and the exploitation of the masses by the capitalists 
finds it political expression in parliamentarianism."</i>
As such, the state form changes and evolves, but its 
basic function (defender of minority rule) and structure 
(delegated power into the hands of a few) remains.
Which means that <i>"a free society regaining possession 
of the common inheritance must seek, in free groups 
and free federations of groups, a new organisation, in 
harmony with the new economic phase of history."</i> 
[<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 54]
<p>
So, as with any social structure, the state has evolved to 
ensure that it carries out its function. In other words, the 
state is centralised because it is an instrument of minority 
domination and oppression. Insofar as a social system is
based on decentralisation of power, popular self-management
and participation and free federation from below upwards,
it is not a state. If a social system is, however, marked
by delegated power and centralisation it is a state and
cannot be, therefore, a instrument of social liberation.
Rather it will become, slowly but surely, <i>"whatever title
it adopts and whatever its origin and organisation may
be"</i> what the state has always been, a instrument for 
<i>"oppressing and exploiting the masses, of defending the
oppressors and the exploiters."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 20] Which, 
for obvious reasons, is why anarchists argue for the
destruction of the state by a free federation of 
self-managed communes and workers' councils (see 
sections <a href="secI5.html">I.5</a> and 
<a href="secH1.html#sech14">H.1.4</a> for further discussion).
<p>
This explains why anarchists reject the Marxist definition 
and theory of the state. For Marxists, <i>"the state is nothing 
but a machine for the oppression of one class by another."</i> 
While it has been true that, historically, it is <i>"the state 
of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, 
through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically 
dominant class, and this acquires the means of holding down 
and exploiting the oppressed class,"</i> this need not always be 
the case. The state is <i>"at best an evil inherited by the 
proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy,"</i> 
although it <i>"cannot avoid having to lop off at once as much 
as possible"</i> of it <i>"until such time as a generation reared 
in new, free social conditions is able to throw the entire 
lumber of the state on the scrap heap."</i> This new state, 
often called the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat,"</i> would 
slowly <i>"wither away"</i> (or <i>"dies out"</i>) as classes disappear 
and the state <i>"at last . . . becomes the real representative 
of the whole of society"</i> and so <i>"renders itself unnecessary."</i> 
Engels is at pains to differentiate this position from that 
of the anarchists, who demand <i>"the abolition of the state 
out of hand."</i> [Engels, <b>Marx-Engels Selected Works</b>, p. 258, 
pp. 577-8, p. 528 and p. 424]
<p>
For anarchists, this argument has deep flaws. Simply put, 
unlike the anarchist one, this is not an empirically based 
theory of the state. Rather, we find such a theory mixed up 
with a metaphysical, non-empirical, a-historic definition 
which is based not on what the state <b>is</b> but rather what is 
<b>could</b> be. Thus the argument that the state <i>"is nothing but 
a machine for the oppression of one class by another"</i> is 
trying to draw out an abstract <i>"essence"</i> of the state rather
than ground what the state is on empirical evidence and 
analysis. This perspective, anarchists argue, simply confuses 
two very different things, namely the state and popular social
organisation, with potentially disastrous results. By calling
the popular self-organisation required by a social revolution
the same name as a hierarchical and centralised body constructed
for, and evolved to ensure, minority rule, the door is wide 
open to confuse popular power with party power, to confuse
rule by the representatives of the working class with 
working class self-management of the revolution and society.
<p>
As we discussed in 
<a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a>, anarchist opposition to
the idea of a <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> should not
be confused with idea that anarchists do not think that a
social revolution needs to be defended. Rather, our opposition
to the concept rests on the confusion which inevitably occurs
when you mix up scientific analysis with metaphysical concepts.
By drawing out an a-historic definition of the state, Engels
helped ensure that the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i>
became the <i>"dictatorship over the proletariat"</i> by implying
that centralisation and delegated power into the hands of
the few can be considered as an expression of popular power.
<p> 
To explain why, we need only to study the works of Engels
himself. Engels, in his famous account of the <b>Origin 
of the Family, Private Property and the State</b>, defined 
the state as follows:
<p><blockquote><i>
"The state is . . . by no means a power forced on society from
without . . . Rather, it is a product of society at a certain
stage of development; it is an admission . . . that it has
split into irreconcilable antagonisms . . . in order that 
these antagonisms and classes with conflicting economic 
interests might not consume themselves and society in
fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have power 
seemingly standing above society that would alleviate the
conflict . . . this power, arisen out of society but placing
itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it,
is the state."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels: Selected Writings</b>, p. 576]
</blockquote><p>
The state has two distinguishing features, firstly (and least
importantly) it <i>"divides its subjects <b>according to territory.</b>"</i>
The second <i>"is the establishment of a <b>public power</b> which
no longer directly coincides with the population organising
itself as an armed force. This special public power is necessary
because a self-acting armed organisation of the population 
has become impossible since the split into classes . . . This
public power exists in every state; it consists not merely of
armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons and institutions
of coercion of all kinds."</i> Thus <i>"an essential feature of the 
state is a public power distinct from the mass of the people."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 576-7 and pp. 535-6]
<p>
In this, as can be seen, the Marxist position concurs with the
anarchist. He discusses the development of numerous ancient 
societies to prove his point. Talking of Greek society, he
argues that it was based on a popular assembly which was 
<i>"sovereign"</i> plus a council. This social system was not a 
state because <i>"when every adult male member of the tribe 
was a warrior, there was as yet no public authority separated 
from the people that could have been set up against it. 
Primitive democracy was still in full bloom, and this must 
remain the point of departure in judging power and the status 
of the council."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 525-6] 
<p>
Discussing the descent of this society into classes, he argues
that this required <i>"an institution that would perpetuate, not 
only the newly-rising class division of society, but the right 
of the possessing class to exploit the non-possessing class and 
the rule of the former over the latter."</i> Unsurprisingly, <i>"this 
institution arrived. The <b>state</b> was invented."</i> The original 
communal organs of society were <i>"superseded by real governmental 
authorities"</i> and the defence of society (<i>"the actual 'people in 
arms'"</i>) was <i>"taken by an armed 'public power' at the service of 
these authorities and, therefore, also available against the 
people."</i> With the rise of the state, the communal council was 
<i>"transformed into a senate."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 528 and p. 525] Thus
the state arises specifically to exclude popular self-government,
replacing it with minority rule conducted via a centralised,
hierarchical top-down structure (<i>"government . . . is the 
natural protector of capitalism and other exploiters of popular 
labour."</i> [Bakunin, <b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 239]).
<p>
This account of the rise of the state is at direct odds with
Engels argument that the state is simply an instrument of 
class rule. For the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> to 
be a state, it would have to constitute a power above society, 
be different from the people armed, and so be <i>"a public power 
distinct from the mass of the people."</i> However, Marx and 
Engels are at pains to stress that the <i>"dictatorship of 
the proletariat"</i> will not be such a regime. However, how 
can you have something (namely <i>"a public power distinct 
from the mass of the people"</i>) you consider as <i>"an essential 
feature"</i> of a state missing in an institution you call the 
same name? It is a bit like calling a mammal a <i>"new kind 
of reptile"</i> in spite of the former not being cold-blooded, 
something you consider as <i>"an essential feature"</i> of the 
latter! 
<p>
This contradiction helps explains Engels comments that 
<i>"[w]e would therefore propose to replace <b>state</b> everywhere
by <b>Gemeinwesen,</b> a good old German word which can very 
well convey the meaning of the French word '<b>commune'</b>"</i>
He even states that the Paris Commune <i>"was no longer a 
state in the proper sense of the word."</i> However, this 
comment does not mean that Engels sought to remove any 
possible confusion on the matter, for he still talked 
of <i>"the state"</i> as <i>"only a transitional institution 
which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to 
hold down's one's adversaries by force . . . so long 
as the proletariat still <b>uses</b> the state, it does 
not use it the interests of freedom but in order to 
hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes
possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases 
to exist."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 335] Thus the state would 
still exist and, furthermore, is <b>not</b> identified with 
the working class as a whole (<i>"a self-acting armed 
organisation of the population"</i>), rather it is an 
institution standing apart from the <i>"people armed"</i>
which is used, by the proletariat, to crush its enemies. 
<p>
(As an aside, we must stress that to state that it only 
becomes possible to <i>"speak of freedom"</i> after the state 
and classes cease to exist is a serious theoretical
error. Firstly, it means to talk about <i>"freedom"</i> in the 
abstract, ignoring the reality of class and hierarchical
society. To state the obvious, in class society working 
class people have their freedom restricted by the state,
wage labour and other forms of social hierarchy. The
aim of social revolution is the conquest of liberty by the
working class by overthrowing hierarchical rule. Freedom
for the working class, by definition, means stopping 
any attempts to restrict that freedom by its adversaries.
To state the obvious, it is not a <i>"restriction"</i> of the 
freedom of would-be bosses to resist their attempts to
impose their rule! As such, Engels, yet again, fails to
consider revolution from a working class perspective --
see <a href="secH4.html#sech47">section H.4.7</a> 
for another example of this flaw.
Moreover his comments have been used to justify 
restrictions on working class freedom, power and 
political rights by Marxist parties once they have 
seized power. <i>"Whatever power the State gains,"</i> correctly
argues Bookchin, <i>"it always does so at the expense of
popular power. Conversely, whatever power the people 
gain, they always acquire at the expense of the State.
To legitimate State power, in effect, is to delegitimate
popular power."</i> [<b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 160])
<p>
Elsewhere, we have Engels arguing that <i>"the characteristic
attribute of the former state"</i> is that while society
<i>"had created its own organs to look after its own
special interests"</i> in the course of time <i>"these organs, 
at whose head was the state power, transformed themselves 
from the servants of society into the masters of society."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 257] Ignoring the obvious contradiction with 
his earlier claims that the state and communal organs were
different, with the former destroying the latter, we are 
struck yet again by the idea of the state as being defined 
as an institution above society. Thus, if the post 
revolutionary society is marked by <i>"the state"</i> being 
dissolved into society, placed under its control, then it 
is not a state. To call it a <i>"new and truly democratic"</i> 
form of <i>"state power"</i> makes as little sense as calling a 
motorcar a <i>"new"</i> form of bicycle. As such, when Engels 
argues that the Paris Commune <i>"was no longer a state in 
the proper sense of the word"</i> or that when the proletariat 
seizes political power it <i>"abolishes the state as state"</i> we 
may be entitled to ask what it is, a state or not a state. 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 335 and p. 424] It cannot be both, it cannot 
be a <i>"public power distinct from the mass of the people"</i> 
<b>and</b> <i>"a self-acting armed organisation of the population."</i> 
If it is the latter, then it does not have what Engels 
considered as <i>"an essential feature of the state"</i> and 
cannot be considered one. If it is the former, then any 
claim that such a regime is the rule of the working class 
is automatically invalidated. That Engels mocked the
anarchists for seeking a revolution <i>"without a provisional 
government and in the total absence of any state or 
state-like institution, which are to be destroyed"</i> we can 
safely say that it is the former. [Marx, Engels and Lenin, 
<b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 156] Given that 
<i>"primitive democracy,"</i> as Engels noted, defended itself 
against its adversaries without such an institution shows 
that to equate the defence of working class freedom with 
the state is not only unnecessary, it simply leads to 
confusion. For this reason anarchists do not confuse the 
necessary task of defending and organising a social 
revolution with creating a state. 
<p>
Thus, the problem for Marxism is that the empirical definition 
of the state collides with the metaphysical, the actual state 
with its Marxist essence. As Italian Anarchist Camillo Berneri 
argued, <i>"'The Proletariat' which seizes the state, bestowing 
on it the complete ownership of the means of production and 
destroying itself as proletariat and the state 'as the state' 
is a metaphysical fantasy, a political hypotasis of social 
abstractions."</i> [<i>"The Abolition and Extinction of the State,"</i> 
<b>Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review</b>, no. 4, p. 50] 
<p>
This is no academic point, as we explain in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">next section</a> 
this confusion has been exploited to justify party power 
<b>over</b> the proletariat. Thus, as Berneri argues, Marxists
<i>"do not propose the armed conquest of the commune by the
whole proletariat, but they propose the conquest of the
State by the party which imagines it represents the 
proletariat. The Anarchists allow the use of direct power 
by the proletariat, but they understand by the organ of 
this power to be formed by the entire corpus of systems 
of communist administration -- corporate organisations
[i.e. industrial unions], communal institutions, both 
regional and national -- freely constituted outside and 
in opposition to all political monopoly by parties and 
endeavouring to a minimum administrational centralisation."</i> 
Thus <i>"the Anarchists desire the destruction of the classes 
by means of a social revolution which eliminates, with the 
classes, the State."</i> [<i>"Dictatorship of the Proletariat and 
State Socialism"</i>, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 52] Anarchists are opposed 
to the state because it is not neutral, it cannot be made 
to serve our interests. The structures of the state are 
only necessary when a minority seeks to rule over the 
majority. We argue that the working class can create our 
own structures, organised and run from below upwards, to 
ensure the efficient running of everyday life.
<p>
By confusing two radically different things, Marxism 
ensures that popular power is consumed and destroyed by 
the state, by a new ruling elite. In the words Murray 
Bookchin:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Marx, in his analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871, has 
done radical social theory a considerable disservice. The 
Commune's combination of delegated policy-making with the 
execution of policy by its own administrators, a feature 
of the Commune which Marx celebrated, is a major failing 
of that body. Rousseau quite rightly emphasised that popular 
power cannot be delegated without being destroyed. One either 
has a fully empowered popular assembly or power belongs to 
the State."</i> [<i>"Theses on Libertarian Municipalism"</i>, pp. 9-22, 
<b>The Anarchist Papers</b>, Dimitrios Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 14]
</blockquote><p>
If power belongs to the state, then the state is a 
public body distinct from the population and, therefore,
not an instrument of working class power. Rather, as an 
institution designed to ensure minority rule, it would
ensure its position within society and become either the 
ruling class itself or create a new class which instrument
it would be. As we discuss in section H.3.9 (
<a href="secH3.html#sech39"><i>"Is the state 
simply an agent of economic power?"</i></a>) the state cannot be 
considered as a neutral instrument of class rule, it has
specific interests in itself which can and does mean it 
can play an oppressive and exploitative role in society
independently of a ruling class.
<p>
Which brings us to the crux of the issue whether this
"new" state will, in fact, be unlike any other state 
that has ever existed. Insofar as this "new" state is 
based on popular self-management and self-organisation,
anarchists argue that such an organisation cannot be
called a state as it is <b>not</b> based on delegated power.
<i>"As long as,"</i> as Bookchin stresses, <i>"the institutions of 
power consisted of armed workers and peasants as 
distinguished from a professional bureaucracy, police 
force, army, and cabal of politicians and judges, they 
were no[t] a State . . . These institutions, in fact 
comprised a revolutionary people in arms . . . not a 
professional apparatus that could be regarded as a State 
in any meaningful sense of the term."</i> [<i>"Looking Back at 
Spain,"</i> pp. 53-96, <b>The Radical Papers</b>, p. 86]
<p>
This was why Bakunin was at pains to emphasis that a
<i>"federal organisation, from below upward, of workers'
associations, groups, communes, districts, and 
ultimately, regions and nations"</i> could not be considered
as the same as <i>"centralised states"</i> and <i>"contrary to 
their essence."</i> [<b>Statism and Anarchy</b>, p. 13] So 
when Lenin argues in <b>State and Revolution</b> that 
in the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> the <i>"organ
of suppression is now the majority of the population,
and not the minority"</i> and that <i>"since the majority of
the people <b>itself</b> suppresses its oppressors, a 
'special force' for the suppression [of the bourgeoisie]
is <b>no longer necessary</b>"</i> he is confusing two 
fundamentally different things. As Engels made clear, 
such a social system of <i>"primitive democracy"</i> is not a 
state. However, when Lenin argues that <i>"the more the 
functions of state power devolve upon the people 
generally, the less need is there for the existence 
of this power,"</i> he is implicitly arguing that there 
would be, in fact, a <i>"public power distinct from mass 
of the people"</i> and so a state in the normal sense of 
the word based on delegated power, <i>"special forces"</i>
separate from the armed people and so on. [<b>Essential 
Works of Lenin</b>, p. 301] 
<p>
That such a regime would not <i>"wither away"</i> has been proven
by history. The state machine does not (indeed, <b>cannot</b>) 
represent the interests of the working classes due to its 
centralised, hierarchical and elitist nature -- all it can 
do is represent the interests of the party in power, its 
own bureaucratic needs and privileges and slowly, but 
surely, remove itself from popular control. This, as 
anarchists have constantly stressed, is why the state 
is based on the delegation of power, on hierarchy and 
centralisation. The state is organised in this way to 
facilitate minority rule by excluding the mass of people 
from taking part in the decision making processes within 
society. If the masses actually did manage society directly, 
it would be impossible for a minority class to dominate it. 
Hence the need for a state. Which shows the central fallacy 
of the Marxist theory of the state, namely it argues that 
the rule of the proletariat will be conducted by a structure, 
the state, which is designed to exclude the popular 
participation such a concept demands!
<p>
Considered another way, <i>"political power"</i> (the state) is 
simply the power of minorities to enforce their wills. This 
means that a social revolution which aims to create socialism 
cannot use it to further its aims. After all, if the state 
(i.e. <i>"political power"</i>) has been created to further minority 
class rule (as Marxists and anarchists agree) then, surely,
this function has determined how the organ which exercises
it has developed. Therefore, we would expect organ and
function to be related and impossible to separate. 
<p>
So when Marx argued that the <i>"conquest of political power
becomes the great duty of the proletariat"</i> because <i>"the lords 
of the land and of capital always make use of their political 
privileges to defend and perpetuate their economic monopolies
and enslave labour,"</i> he drew the wrong conclusion. [Marx, 
Engels and Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 85] 
Building on a historically based (and so evolutionary) 
understanding of the state, anarchists concluded that it 
was necessary not to seize political power (which could 
only be exercised by a minority within any state) but 
rather to destroy it, to dissipate power into the hands of 
the working class, the majority. By ending the regime of 
the powerful by destroying their instrument of rule, the 
power which was concentrated into their hands automatically 
falls back into the hands of society. Thus, working class 
power can only be concrete once <i>"political power"</i> is 
shattered and replaced by the social power of the working 
class based on its own class organisations (such as factory 
committees, workers' councils, unions, neighbourhood 
assemblies and so on). As Murray Bookchin put it:
<p><blockquote><i>
"the slogan 'Power to the people' can only be put into 
practice when the power exercised by social elites is 
dissolved into the people. Each individual can then take 
control of his [or her] daily life. If 'Power to the people' 
means nothing more than power to the 'leaders' of the people, 
then the people remain an undifferentiated, manipulated mass, 
as powerless after the revolution as they were before."</i> 
[<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 20f]
</blockquote><p>
In practice, this means that any valid social revolution needs
to break the new state and <b>not</b> replace it with another one.
This is because, in order to be a state, any state structure 
must be based on delegated power, hierarchy and centralisation
(<i>"every State, even the most Republican and the most democratic
. . . . are in essence only machine governing the masses from
above"</i> and <i>"[i]f there is a State, there must necessarily be
domination, and therefore slavery; a State without slavery,
overt or concealed, is unthinkable -- and that is why we are
enemies of the State."</i> [Bakunin, <b>The Political Philosophy of 
Bakunin</b>, p. 211 and p. 287]). This means that if power is 
devolved to the working class then the state no longer exists 
as its <i>"essential feature"</i> (of delegated power) is absent. 
What you have is a new form of the <i>"primitive democracy"</i> 
which existed before the rise of the state. While this new,
modern, form of self-management will have to defend itself
against those seeking to recreate minority power, this does
not mean that it becomes a state. After all, <i>"primitive 
democracy"</i> had to defend itself against its adversaries and
so that, in itself, does not (as Engels acknowledges) means 
it is a state. Thus defence of a revolution, as anarchists 
have constantly stressed, does not equate to a state as it 
fails to address the key issue, namely who has <b>power</b> in 
the system -- the masses or their leaders. 
<p>
This issue is fudged by Marx. In his comments on Bakunin's 
question in <i>"Statism and Anarchy"</i> about <i>"Will the entire 
proletariat head the government?"</i>, Marx argues in response:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Does in a trade union, for instance, the whole union 
constitute the executive committee? Will all division of 
labour in a factory disappear and also the various functions 
arising from it? And will everybody be at the top in Bakunin's 
construction built from the bottom upwards? There will in 
fact be no below then. Will all members of the commune also 
administer the common affairs of the region? In that case 
there will be no difference between commune and region. 
'The Germans [says Bakunin] number nearly 40 million. Will, 
for example, all 40 million be members of the government?' 
Certainly, for the thing begins with the self-government 
of the commune."</i> [Marx, Engels and Lenin, <b>Anarchism and 
Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, pp. 150-1]
</blockquote><p>
As Alan Carter argues, <i>"this might have seemed to Marx 
[over] a century ago to be satisfactory rejoinder, but 
it can hardly do today. In the infancy of the trade unions, 
which is all Marx knew, the possibility of the executives 
of a trade union becoming divorced from the ordinary members 
may not have seemed to him to be a likely outcome, We, 
however, have behind us a long history of union leaders
'selling out' and being out of touch with their members. 
Time has ably demonstrated that to reject Bakunin's fears 
on the basis of the practice of trade union officials 
constitutes a woeful complacency with regard to power 
and privilege -- a complacency that was born ample fruit 
in the form of present Marxist parties and 'communist' 
societies . . . [His] dispute with Bakunin shows quite 
clearly that Marx did not stress the continued control 
of the revolution by the mass of the people as a 
prerequisite for the transcendence of all significant 
social antagonisms."</i> [<b>Marx: A Radical Critique</b>, 
pp. 217-8]
<p>
As we discussed in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech31">section H.3.1</a>, Marx's <i>"Address 
to the Communist League,"</i> with its stress on <i>"the most
determined centralisation of power in the hands of 
the state authority"</i> and that <i>"the path of revolutionary
activity . . . can only proceed with full force from
the centre,"</i> suggests that Bakunin's fears were valid
and Marx's answer simply inadequate. [<b>Marx-Engels 
Reader</b>, p. 509] Simply put, if, as Engels argues, 
the <i>"an essential feature of the state is a public 
power distinct from the mass of the people,"</i> then, 
clearly Marx's argument of 1850 (and others like it) 
signifies a state in the usual sense of the word, 
one which has to be <i>"distinct"</i> from the mass of the 
population in order to ensure that the masses are 
prevented from interfering with their own revolution. 
<p>
Ultimately, the question, of course, is one of power. Does 
the <i>"executive committee"</i> have the fundamental decision 
making power in society, or does that power lie in 
the mass assemblies upon which a federal socialist 
society is built? If the former, we have rule by a 
few party leaders and the inevitable bureaucratisation 
of the society and a state in the accepted sense of the
word. If the latter, we have a basic structure of a free 
and equal society and a new organisation of popular 
self-management which eliminates, by self-management,
the existence of a public power above society. This is 
not playing with words. It signifies the key issue of 
social transformation, an issue which Marxism tends to
ignore or confuse matters about when discussing. Bookchin 
clarifies what is at stake:
<p><blockquote><i>
"To some neo-Marxists who see centralisation and 
decentralisation merely as difference of degree, the
word 'centralisation' may merely be an awkward way of
denoting means for <b>co-ordinating</b> the decisions made
by decentralised bodies. Marx, it is worth noting, 
greatly confused this distinction when he praised the
Paris Commune as a 'working, not a parliamentary body,
executive and legislative at the same time.' In point 
of fact, the consolidation of 'executive and legislative' 
functions in a single body was regressive. It simply 
identified the process of policy-making, a function that 
rightly should belong to the people in assembly, with the 
technical execution of these policies, a function that 
should be left to strictly administrative bodies subject 
to rotation, recall, limitations of tenure . . . 
Accordingly, the melding of policy formation with 
administration placed the institutional emphasis of 
classical [Marxist] socialism on centralised bodies, 
indeed, by an ironical twist of historical events, 
bestowing the privilege of formulating policy on the 
'higher bodies' of socialist hierarchies and their 
execution precisely on the more popular 'revolutionary 
committees' below."</i> [<b>Toward an Ecological Society</b>, 
pp. 215-6]
</blockquote><p>
By confusing co-ordination with the state (i.e. with
delegation of power), Marxism opens the door wide open
to the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> being a state
<i>"in the proper sense."</i> Not only does Marxism open that
door, it even invites the state <i>"in the proper sense"</i> of 
the word in! This can be seen from Engels comment that 
just as <i>"each political party sets out to establish its 
rule in the state, so the German Social-Democratic 
Workers' Party is striving to establish <b>its</b> rule, 
the rule of the working class."</i> [Marx, Engels and Lenin, 
<b>Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism</b>, p. 94] By confusing 
rule by the party <i>"in the state"</i> with <i>"rule of the working 
class,"</i> Engels is confusing party power and popular power. 
For the party to <i>"establish <b>its</b> rule,"</i> the state in 
the normal sense (i.e. a structure based on the delegation 
of power) has to be maintained. As such, the <i>"dictatorship 
of the proletariat"</i> signifies the delegation of power by 
the proletariat into the hands of the party and that 
implies a <i>"public power distinct from the mass of the
people"</i> and so minority rule. This aspect of Marxism, 
as we argue in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">next section</a>, was developed under the 
Bolsheviks and became <i>"the dictatorship of the party"</i> (i.e. 
the dictatorship <b>over</b> the proletariat).
<p>
It is for this reason why anarchists are extremely critical
of Marxist ideas of social revolution. As Alan Carter argues:
<p><blockquote><i>
"It is to argue not against revolution, but against 
'revolutionary' praxis employing central authority. 
It is to argue that any revolution must remain in the 
hands of the mass of people and that they must be aware 
of the dangers of allowing power to fall into the hands 
of a minority in the course of the revolution. Latent 
within Marxist theory . . . is the tacit condoning of
political inequality in the course and aftermath of 
revolutionary praxis. Only when such inequality is openly 
and widely rejected can there be any hope of a libertarian 
communist revolution. The lesson to learn is that we must 
oppose not revolutionary practice, but <b>authoritarian</b> 
'revolutionary' practice. Such authoritarian practice
will continue to prevail in revolutionary circles as 
long as the Marxist theory of the state and the 
corresponding theory of power remain above criticism 
within them."</i> [<b>Marx: A Radical Critique</b>, p. 231]
</blockquote><p>
In summary, the Marxist theory of the state is simply 
a-historic and postulates some kind of state "essence" 
which exists independently of actual states and their
role in society. To confuse the organ required by a 
minority class to execute and maintain its rule and that
required by a majority class to manage society is to
make a theoretical error of great magnitude. It opens
the door to the idea of party power and even party 
dictatorship. As such, the Marxism of Marx and Engels 
is confused on the issue of the state. Their comments 
fluctuate between the anarchist definition of the state 
(based, as it is, on generalisations from historical 
examples) and the a-historic definition (based not on 
historical example but rather derived from a 
supra-historical analysis). Trying to combine the 
metaphysical with the scientific, the authoritarian 
with the libertarian, can only leave their followers 
with a confused legacy and that is what we find.
<p>
Since the death of the founding fathers of Marxism, their
followers have diverged into two camps. The majority have 
embraced the metaphysical and authoritarian concept of the
state and proclaimed their support for a <i>"workers' state."</i>
This is represented by social-democracy and it radical 
offshoot, Leninism. As we discuss in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">next section</a>, this
school has used the Marxist conception of the state to allow 
for rule over the working class by the <i>"revolutionary"</i> party.
The minority has become increasingly and explicitly anti-state,
recognising that the Marxist legacy is contradictory and that
for the proletarian to directly manage society then there can
be no power above them. To this camp belongs the libertarian
Marxists of the council communist, Situationist and other 
schools of thought which are close to anarchism.
<p>
<a name="sech38"><h2>H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state?</h2>

<p>
As discussed in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">last section</a>, there is a contradiction at
the heart of the Marxist theory of the state. On the one hand,
it acknowledges that the state, historically, has always been
an instrument of minority rule and is structured to ensure 
this. On the other, it argues that you can have a state (the 
<i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i>) which transcends this 
historical reality to express an abstract essence of the 
state as an <i>"instrument of class rule."</i> This means that Marxism
usually confuses two very different concepts, namely the state
(a structure based on centralisation and delegated power) and 
the popular self-management and self-organisation required
to create and defend a socialist society.
<p>
This confusion between two fundamentally different concepts 
proved to be disastrous when the Russian Revolution broke out.
Confusing party power with working class power, the Bolsheviks
aimed to create a "workers' state" in which their party would
be in power (see 
<a href="append41.html#app5">section 5</a> of the appendix on
<a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>). As the state was an instrument
of class rule, it did not matter if the new "workers' state"
was centralised, hierarchical and top-down like the old state
as the structure of the state was considered irrelevant in 
evaluating its role in society. Thus, while Lenin seemed to
promise a radical democracy in which the working class would
directly manage its own affairs in his <b>State and Revolution</b>,
in practice implemented a <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i>
which was, in fact, <i>"the organisation of the vanguard of the
oppressed as the ruling class."</i> [<b>Essential Works of Lenin</b>,
p. 337] In other words, the vanguard party in the position 
of head of the state, governing on behalf of the working 
class which, as we argued in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">last section</a>, meant that
the new "workers' state" was fundamentally a state in the
usual sense of the word. This quickly lead to a dictatorship
<b>over,</b> not of, the proletariat (as Bakunin had predicted).
<p>
This development did not come as a surprise to anarchists,
who long argued that a state is an instrument of minority 
rule and cannot change its nature. To use the state to affect
socialist change is impossible, simply because it is not
designed for such a task. As we argued in 
<a href="secB2.html">section B.2</a>,
the state is based on centralisation of power explicitly to
ensure minority rule and for this reason has to be abolished
during a social revolution.
<p>
Ironically, the theoretical lessons Leninists gained from 
the experience of the Russian Revolution confirm the 
anarchist analysis that the state structure exists to 
facilitate minority rule and marginalise and disempower 
the majority to achieve that rule. This can be seen from 
the significant revision of the Marxist position which 
occurred once the Bolshevik party become the ruling party.
Simply put, after 1917 leading representatives of Leninism
stressed that the idea that state power was <b>not</b> required 
to repress resistance by the ex-ruling class as such, but,
in fact, was necessitated by the divisions within the 
working class. In other words, state power was required
because the working class was not able to govern itself
and so required a grouping (the party) above it to ensure
the success of the revolution and overcome any <i>"wavering"</i>
within the masses themselves.
<p>
While we have discussed this position in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a> and
so will be repeating ourselves to some degree, it is worth
summarising again the arguments put forward to justify this
revision. This is because they confirm what anarchists have
always argued, namely that the state is an instrument of
minority rule and <b>not</b> one by which working class people 
can manage their own affairs directly. As the quotations
from leading Leninists make clear, it is <b>precisely</b> this
feature of the state which recommends it for party (i.e.
minority) power. In other words, the contradiction at the 
heart of the Marxist theory of the state we pointed out in 
the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">last section</a> 
has been resolved in Leninism. It supports
the state precisely because it is <i>"a public power distinct 
from the mass of the people,"</i> rather than an instrument of
working class self-management of society. 
<p>
Needless to say, latter day followers of Leninism point to 
Lenin's apparently democratic, even libertarian sounding, 
1917 work, <b>The State and Revolution</b> when asked about the
Leninist theory of the state. As our discussion of the Russian
revolution in the appendix <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> 
proves, the ideas expounded in his 
pamphlet were rarely, if at all, applied in practice by the
Bolsheviks. Moreover, it was written before the seizure of
power. In order to see the validity of his argument we must
compare it to his and his fellow Bolshevik leaders opinions
once the revolution had "succeeded." What lessons did they
generalise from their experiences and how did these lessons
relate to <b>State and Revolution</b>?
<p>
This change can be seen from Trotsky, who argued quite
explicitly that <i>"the proletariat can take power only through 
its vanguard"</i> and that <i>"the necessity for state power arises 
from an insufficient cultural level of the masses and their 
heterogeneity."</i> Only with <i>"support of the vanguard by the 
class"</i> can there be the <i>"conquest of power"</i> and it was in
<i>"this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are 
the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of 
the vanguard."</i> Thus, rather than the working class as a whole 
seizing power, it is the <i>"vanguard"</i> which takes power -- <i>"a 
revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is still 
by no means the sovereign ruler of society."</i> [<b>Stalinism and 
Bolshevism</b>] 
<p>
Thus state power is required to <b>govern the masses,</b> who 
cannot exercise power themselves. As Trotsky put it, 
<i>"[t]hose who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the 
party dictatorship should understand that only thanks to 
the party dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift 
themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the 
state form of the proletariat."</i> [Trotsky, <b>Op. Cit.</b>] Clearly, the state is envisioned as an instrument 
existing <b>above</b> society, above the working class, and its 
<i>"necessity"</i> is not driven by the need to defend the 
revolution, but rather in the <i>"insufficient cultural 
level of the masses."</i> Indeed, <i>"party dictatorship"</i> is 
required to create <i>"the state form of the proletariat."</i> 
<p>
This idea that state power was required due to the limitations
within the working class is reiterated a few years later in
1939:
<p><blockquote><i>
"The very same masses are at different times inspired by 
different moods and objectives. It is just for this reason 
that a centralised organisation of the vanguard is 
indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority it has 
won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation of the masses 
themselves . . . if the dictatorship of the proletariat
means anything at all, then it means that the vanguard of
the proletariat is armed with the resources of the state
in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from
the backward layers of the proletariat itself."</i> [<b>The 
Moralists and Sycophants</b>, p. 59]
</blockquote><p>
Needless to say, <b>by definition</b> everyone is <i>"backward"</i>
when compared to the <i>"vanguard of the proletariat."</i> Moreover,
as it is this <i>"vanguard"</i> which is <i>"armed with the resources
of the state"</i> and <b>not</b> the proletariat as a whole we are
left with one obvious conclusion, namely party dictatorship
rather than working class democracy. How Trotsky's position 
is compatible with the idea of the working class as the 
"ruling class" is not explained. However, it fits in well 
with the anarchist analysis of the state as an instrument 
designed to ensure minority rule. Other, equally elitist 
arguments were expressed by Trotsky twenty years earlier 
when he held the reins of power.
<p>
In 1920, he argued that while the Bolsheviks have <i>"more than 
once been accused of having substituted for the dictatorship
of the Soviets the dictatorship of the party,"</i> in fact <i>"it 
can be said with complete justice that the dictatorship of 
the Soviets became possible only by means of the dictatorship 
of the party."</i> This, just to state the obvious, was his 
argument seventeen years later. <i>"In this 'substitution' of 
the power of the party for the power of the working class,"</i>
Trotsky added, <i>"there is nothing accidental, and in reality 
there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the 
fundamental interests of the working class."</i> [<b>Terrorism and 
Communism</b>, p. 109] In early 1921, he argued again for Party 
dictatorship at the Tenth Party Congress. His comments made 
there against the <b>Workers' Opposition</b> within the Communist 
Party make his position clear: 
<p><blockquote><i>
"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, 
making a fetish of democratic principles! They place the 
workers' right to elect representatives above the Party, as 
if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship 
even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing 
moods of the workers' democracy. It is necessary to create 
amongst us the awareness of the revolutionary birthright of 
the party, which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship, 
regardless of temporary wavering even in the working classes. 
This awareness is for us the indispensable element. The 
dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the 
formal principle of a workers' democracy."</i> [quoted by Samuel 
Farber, <b>Before Stalinism</b>, p. 209] 
</blockquote><p>
The similarities with his arguments of 1939 are obvious.
Unsurprisingly, he maintained this position in the intervening 
years. He stated in 1922 that <i>"we maintain the dictatorship of our 
party!"</i> [<b>The First Five Years of the Communist International</b>,
vol. 2, p. 255] The next year saw him arguing that <i>"[i]f 
there is one question which basically not only does not 
require revision but does not so much as admit the 
thought of revision, it is the question of the dictatorship 
of the Party."</i> He stressed that <i>"[o]ur party is the ruling 
party"</i> and that <i>"[t]o allow any changes whatever in this 
field"</i> meant <i>"bring[ing] into question all the achievements 
of the revolution and its future."</i> He indicated the fate of 
those who <b>did</b> question the party's <i>"leading role"</i>: <i>"Whoever 
makes an attempt on the party's leading role will, I hope, 
be unanimously dumped by all of us on the other side of
the barricade."</i> [<b>Leon Trotsky Speaks</b>, p. 158 and p. 160]
<p>
By 1927, when Trotsky was in the process of being <i>"dumped"</i>
on the <i>"other side of the barricade"</i> by the ruling bureaucracy,
he <b>still</b> argued for Party dictatorship. The <b>Platform
of the Opposition</b> includes <i>"the Leninist principle, inviolable 
for every Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the proletariat 
is and can be realised only through the dictatorship of the 
party."</i> The document stresses the <i>"dictatorship of the 
proletariat [sic!] demands as its very core a single 
proletarian party,"</i> that <i>"the dictatorship of the proletariat 
demands a single and united proletarian party as the leader 
of the working masses and the poor peasantry."</i> 
<p>
Ten years later, he explicitly argued that the <i>"revolutionary 
dictatorship of a proletarian party"</i> was <i>"an objective 
necessity imposed upon us by the social realities -- the 
class struggle, the heterogeneity of the revolutionary
class, the necessity for a selected vanguard in order to 
assure the victory."</i> This <i>"dictatorship of a party"</i> was
essential and <i>"we can not jump over this chapter"</i> of human
history. He stressed that the <i>"revolutionary party (vanguard)
which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses
to the counter-revolution"</i> and argued that <i>"the party 
dictatorship"</i> could <b>not</b> be replaced by <i>"the 'dictatorship' 
of the whole toiling people without any party."</i> This was
because the <i>"level of political development among the 
masses"</i> was not <i>"high"</i> enough as <i>"capitalism does not permit 
the material and the moral development of the masses."</i> 
[Trotsky, <b>Writings 1936-37</b>, pp. 513-4]
<p>
Thus, for Trotsky over a twenty year period, the <i>"dictatorship 
of the proletariat"</i> was fundamentally a <i>"dictatorship of the 
party."</i> While the working class may be allowed some level of 
democracy, the rule of the party was repeatedly given precedence. 
While the party may be placed into power by a mass revolution, 
once there the party would maintain its position of power and
dismiss attempts by the working class to replace it as <i>"wavering"</i>
or <i>"vacillation"</i> due to the <i>"insufficient cultural level of the 
masses and their heterogeneity."</i> In other words, the party 
dictatorship was required to protect working class people
from themselves, their tendency to change their minds based
on debates between difference political ideas and positions, 
make their own decisions, reject what is in their best interests
(as determined by the party), and so on. Thus the underlying 
rationale for democracy (namely that it reflects the changing
will of the voters, their <i>"passing moods"</i> so to speak) is 
used to justify party dictatorship!
<p>
As noted in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a>, 
Trotsky on this matter was simply
following Lenin's led, who had admitted at the end of 1920
that while <i>"the dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> was 
<i>"inevitable"</i> in the <i>"transition of socialism,"</i> it is <i>"not 
exercised by an organisation which takes in all industrial
workers."</i> The reason, he states, <i>"is given in the theses of
the Second Congress of the Communist International on the
role of political parties"</i> (more on which later). This means
that <i>"the Party, shall we say, absorbs the vanguard of the
proletariat, and this vanguard exercises the dictatorship
of the proletariat."</i> This was required because <i>"in all 
capitalist countries . . . the proletariat is still so divided, 
so degraded, and so corrupted in parts."</i> Therefore, it <i>"can be 
exercised only by a vanguard."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 32, 
p. 20 and p. 21] As we pointed out in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech33">section H.3.3</a>, Lenin
argued that <i>"revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed 
towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses 
themselves."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 42, p. 170] Needless to say, 
Lenin failed to mention this aspect of his system in <b>The 
State and Revolution</b> (a failure usually repeated by his 
followers). It is, however, a striking confirmation of 
Bakunin's comments <i>"the State cannot be sure of its own
self-preservation without an armed force to defend it 
against its own <b>internal enemies,</b> against the discontent
of its own people."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>,
p. 265]
<p>
Looking at the lessons leading leaders of Leninism gained from
the experience of the Russian Revolution, we have to admit that
the Leninist <i>"workers' state"</i> will not be, in fact, a <i>"new"</i> kind
of state, a <i>"semi-state,"</i> or, to quote Lenin, a <i>"new state"</i> which
<i>"is <b>no longer</b> a state in the proper sense of the word."</i> If, as 
Lenin argued in early 1917, the state <i>"in the proper sense of 
the term is domination over the people by contingents of armed
men divorced from the people,"</i> then Bolshevism in power quickly
saw the need for a state <i>"in the proper sense."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>, 
vol. 2, p. 60] While this state <i>"in the proper sense"</i> had existed
from the start of Bolshevik rule (see 
<a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>), it was only
from 1919 onwards (at the latest) that the leaders of Bolshevism 
had openly brought what they said into line with what they did. 
It was only by being a <i>"state in the proper sense"</i> could the 
Bolshevik party rule and exercise <i>"the dictatorship of the party"</i> 
over the <i>"wavering"</i> working class.
<p>
So when Lenin states that <i>"Marxism differs from anarchism in 
that it recognises <b>the need for a state</b> for the purpose of 
the transition to socialism,"</i> anarchists agree. Insofar as 
"Marxism" aims for, to quote Lenin, the party to <i>"take state
power into [its] own hands,"</i> to become <i>"the governing party"</i>
and considers one of its key tasks for <i>"our Party to capture 
political power"</i> and to <i>"administer"</i> a country, then we can 
safely say that the state needed is a state <i>"in the proper 
sense,"</i> based on the centralisation and delegation of power 
into the hands of a few. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 60, p. 589, p. 328 
and p. 589]
<p>
This recreation of the state <i>"in the proper sense"</i> did not 
come about by chance or simply because of the <i>"will to power"</i> 
of the leaders of Bolshevism. Rather, there are strong 
institutional pressures at work within any state structure 
(even a <i>"semi-state"</i>) to turn it back into a <i>"proper"</i> state. 
We discuss this in more detail in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech39">section H.3.9</a>. However,
we should not ignore that many of the roots of Bolshevik 
tyranny can be found in the contradictions of the Marxist 
theory of the state. As noted in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">last section</a>, for 
Engels, the seizure of power by the party meant that the 
working class was in power. The Leninist tradition builds 
on this confusion between party and class power. It is clear 
that the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> is, in fact, rule 
by the party. In Lenin's words:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Engels speaks of <b>a government that is required for the 
domination of a class</b> . . . Applied to the proletariat, 
it consequently means a government <b>that is required for 
the domination of the proletariat,</b> i.e. the dictatorship 
of the proletariat for the effectuation of the socialist 
revolution."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 8, p. 279]
</blockquote><p>
The role of the working class in this state was also indicated,
as <i>"only a revolutionary dictatorship supported by the vast
majority of the people can be at all durable."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 291] In other words the <i>"revolutionary government"</i> has the
power, not the working class in whose name it governs. In
1921 he made this explicit: <i>"To govern you need an army of 
steeled revolutionary Communists. We have it, and it is 
called the Party."</i> The <i>"Party is the leader, the vanguard 
of the proletariat, which rules directly."</i> For Lenin, as 
<i>"long as we, the Party's Central Committee and the whole 
Party, continue to run things, that is govern we shall 
never -- we cannot -- dispense with . . . removals, transfers, 
appointments, dismissals, etc."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 32, p. 62, 
p. 98 and p. 99] So much for <i>"workers' power,"</i> <i>"socialism
from below"</i> and other such rhetoric. 
<p>
This vision of "socialism" being rooted in party power over
the working class was the basis of the Communist International's
resolution of the role of the party. This resolution is, therefore, 
important and worth discussing. 
<p>
It argues that the Communist Party <i>"is <b>part</b> of the working 
class,"</i> namely its <i>"most advanced, most class-conscious, and 
therefore most revolutionary part."</i> It is <i>"distinguished from 
the working class as a whole in that it grasps the whole 
historic path of the working class in its entirety and at 
every bend in that road endeavours to defend not the interests 
of individual groups or occupations but the interests of the 
working class as a whole."</i> [<b>Proceedings and Documents of the 
Second Congress 1920</b>, vol. 1, p. 191] However, in response it 
can be argued that this simply means the <i>"interests of the 
party"</i> as only it can understand what <i>"the interests of the 
working class as a whole"</i> actually are. Thus we have the 
possibility of the party substituting its will for that of 
the working class simply because of what Leninists term the 
<i>"uneven development"</i> of the working class. As Alan Carter 
argues, these <i>"conceptions of revolutionary organisation 
maintain political and ideological domination by retaining 
supervisory roles and notions of privileged access to 
knowledge . . . the term 'class consciousness' is 
employed to facilitate such domination over the workers. 
It is not what the workers think, but what the party 
leaders think they ought to think that constitutes the 
revolutionary consciousness imputed to the workers."</i> 
The ideological basis for a new class structure is 
created as the <i>"Leninist revolutionary praxis . . . is 
carried forward to post-revolutionary institutions,"</i> 
[<b>Marx: A Radical Critique</b>, p. 175]
<p>
The resolution stresses that before the revolution, the 
party <i>"will encompass . . . only a minority of the workers."</i> 
Even after the <i>"seizure of power,"</i> it will still <i>"not be 
able to unite them all into its ranks organisationally."</i> 
It is only after the <i>"final defeat of the bourgeois order"</i> 
will <i>"all or almost all workers begin to join"</i> it. Thus
the party is a <b>minority</b> of the working class. The 
resolution then goes on to state that <i>"[e]very class 
struggle is a political struggle. This struggle, which 
inevitably becomes transformed into civil war, has as
its goal the conquest of political power. Political power
cannot be seized, organised, and directed other than by
some kind of political party."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 192, p. 193]
And as the party is a <i>"part"</i> of the working class which 
cannot <i>"unite"</i> all workers <i>"into its ranks,"</i> this means 
that political power can only be <i>"seized, organised, and 
directed"</i> by a <b>minority.</b> 
<p>
Thus we have minority rule, with the party (or more 
correctly its leaders) exercising political power. The 
idea that the party <i>"must <b>dissolve</b> into the councils,
that the councils can <b>replace</b> the Communist Party"</i> is 
<i>"fundamentally wrong and reactionary."</i> This is because, 
to <i>"enable the soviets to fulfil their historic tasks, 
there must . . . be a strong Communist Party, one that
does not simply 'adapt' to the soviets but is able to 
make them renounce 'adaptation' to the bourgeoisie."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 196] Thus rather than the workers' councils 
exercising power, their role is simply that of allowing
the Communist Party to seize political party. 
<p>
The underlying assumptions behind this resolution and its
implications were clear by Zinoviev during his introductory
speech to the congress meeting on the role of the party
which finally agreed the resolution: 
<p><blockquote><i>
"Today, people like Kautsky come along and say that in Russia
you do not have the dictatorship of the working class but the
dictatorship of the party. They think this is a reproach against
us. Not in the least! We have a dictatorship of the working
class and that is precisely why we also have a dictatorship of
the Communist Party. The dictatorship of the Communist Party
is only a function, an attribute, an expression of the
dictatorship of the working class . . . [T]he dictatorship
of the proletariat is at the same time the dictatorship of
the Communist Party."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 151-2]
</blockquote><p>
Little wonder that Bertrand Russell, on his return from 
Lenin's Russia in 1920, wrote that <i>"[f]riends of Russia 
here [in Britain] think of the dictatorship of the 
proletariat as merely a new form of representative 
government, in which only working men and women have 
votes, and the constituencies are partly occupational,
not geographical. They think that 'proletariat' means
'proletariat,' but 'dictatorship' does not quote mean
'dictatorship.' This is the opposite of the truth. When
a Russian Communist speak of a dictatorship, he means
the word literally, but when he speaks of the proletariat,
he means the word in a Pickwickian sense. He means the
'class-conscious' part of the proletariat, i.e. the 
Communist Party. He includes people by no means 
proletarian (such as Lenin and Tchicherin) who have 
the right opinions, and he excludes such wage-earners 
as have not the right opinions, whim he classifies as 
lackeys of the <b>bourgeoisie.</b>"</i> Significantly, Russell 
pointed, like Lenin, to the Comintern resolution on the 
role of the Communist Party. In addition, Russell notes
the reason why this party dictatorship was required:
<i>"No conceivable system of free elections would give
majorities to the Communists, either in the town or
country."</i> [<b>The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism</b>, 
pp. 26-27 and pp. 40-1]
<p>
Nor are followers of Bolshevism shy in repeating its elitist 
conclusions. Tony Cliff, for example, showed his lack of 
commitment to working class democracy when he opined that 
the <i>"actual level of democracy, as well as centralism, 
[during a revolution] depends on three basic factors: 
1. the strength of the proletariat; 2. the material and 
cultural legacy left to it by the old regime; and 3. the 
strength of capitalist resistance. The level of democracy 
feasible must be indirect proportion to the first two 
factors, and in inverse proportion to the third. The 
captain of an ocean liner can allow football to be played 
on his vessel; on a tiny raft in a stormy sea the level of 
tolerance is far lower."</i> [<b>Lenin</b>, vol. 3, p. 179] That 
Cliff compares working class democracy to <i>"football"</i> says 
it all. Rather than seeing it as the core gain of a 
revolution, he relegates it to the level of a <b>game,</b> 
which may or may not be <i>"tolerated"</i>! 
<p>
And need we speculate who the paternalistic <i>"captain"</i> in charge 
of the ship of the state would be would be? Replacing Cliff's 
revealing analogies we get the following: <i>"The party in charge 
of a workers' state can allow democracy when the capitalist class 
is not resisting; when it is resisting strongly, the level 
of tolerance is far lower."</i> So, democracy will be <i>"tolerated"</i>
in the extremely unlikely situation that the capitalist class 
will not resist a revolution! That the party has no right to
<i>"tolerate"</i> democracy or not is not even entertained by Cliff,
its right to negate the basic rights of the working class 
is taken as a given. Clearly the key factor is that the party 
is in power. It <b>may</b> <i>"tolerate"</i> democracy, but ultimately 
his analogy shows that Bolshevism considers it as an added 
extra whose (lack of) existence in no way determines the 
nature of the <i>"workers' state."</i> Perhaps, therefore, we may 
add another <i>"basic factor"</i> to Cliff's three; namely <i>"4. the 
strength of working class support for the party."</i> The level 
of democracy feasible must be in direct proportion to this 
factor, as the Bolsheviks made clear. As long as the workers 
vote the party, then democracy is wonderful. If they do not, 
then their <i>"wavering"</i> and <i>"passing moods"</i> cannot be 
<i>"tolerated"</i> and democracy is replaced by the dictatorship 
of the party. Which is no democracy at all.
<p>
Obviously, then, if, as Engels argued, <i>"an essential feature 
of the state is a public power distinct from the mass of 
the people"</i> then the regime advocated by Bolshevism is 
not a <i>"semi-state"</i> but, in fact, a normal state. Trotsky 
and Lenin are equally clear that said state exists to ensure 
that the <i>"mass of the people"</i> do not participate in public 
power, which is exercised by a minority, the party (or, 
more correctly, the rulers of the party). One of the key aims
of this new state is to repress the <i>"backward"</i> or <i>"wavering"</i>
sections of the working class (although, by definition, 
all sections of the working class are <i>"backward"</i> in relation
to the <i>"vanguard"</i>). Hence the need for a <i>"public power
distinct from the people"</i> (as the suppression of the strike
wave and Kronstadt in 1921 shows, elite troops are always
needed to stop the army siding with their fellow workers).
And as proven by Trotsky's comments after he was squeezed
out of power, this perspective was <b>not</b> considered as a
product of <i>"exceptional circumstances."</i> Rather it was 
considered a basic lesson of the revolution, a position 
which was applicable to all future revolutions. In this,
Lenin and other leading Bolsheviks concurred.
<p>
The irony (and tragedy) of all this should not be lost. In
his 1905 diatribe against anarchism, Stalin had denied that
Marxists aimed for party dictatorship. He stressed that there
was <i>"a dictatorship of the minority, the dictatorship of a
small group . . . which is directed against the people . . .
Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship, and they
fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly and 
self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists."</i> The 
practice of Bolshevism and the ideological revisions it
generated easily refutes Stalin's claims. The practice of
Bolshevism shows that his claims that <i>"[a]t the head"</i> of
the <i>"dictatorship of the proletarian majority . . . stand
the masses"</i> stand in sharp contradiction with Bolshevik
support for <i>"revolutionary"</i> governments. Either you have
(to use Stalin's expression) <i>"the dictatorship of the 
streets, of the masses, a dictatorship directed against 
all oppressors"</i> or you have party power <b>in the name of 
the street, of the masses.</b> The fundamental flaw in Leninism 
is that it confuses the two and so lays the group for the
very result anarchists predicted and Stalin denied. 
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 1, p. 371-2]
<p>
While anarchists are well aware of the need to defend a 
revolution (see 
<a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a>), we do not make the mistake 
of equating this with a state. Ultimately, the state 
cannot be used as an instrument of liberation -- it is
not designed for it. Which, incidentally, is why we have
not discussed the impact of the Russian Civil War on the
development of Bolshevik ideology. Simply put, the <i>"workers'
state"</i> is proposed, by Leninists, as the means to defend 
a revolution. As such, you cannot blame what it is meant to
be designed to withstand (counter-revolution and civil war) 
for its <i>"degeneration."</i> If the <i>"workers' state"</i> cannot handle
what its advocates claim it exists for, then its time to
look for an alternative and dump the concept in the dustbin
of history. We discuss this in the appendix on 
<a href="append4.html">"The Russian Revolution"</a>.
<p>
In summary, Bolshevism is based on a substantial revision of 
the Marxist theory of the state. While Marx and Engels were 
at pains to stress the accountability of their new state to 
the population under it, Leninism has made a virtue of the 
fact that the state has evolved to exclude that mass 
participation in order to ensure minority rule. Leninism has 
done so explicitly to allow the party to overcome the 
<i>"wavering"</i> of the working class, the very class it claims 
is the "ruling class" under socialism! In doing this, the 
Leninist tradition exploited the confused nature of the 
state theory of traditional Marxism (see 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">last section</a>). 
The Leninist theory of the state is flawed simply because 
it is based on creating a <i>"state in the proper sense
of the word,"</i> with a public power distinct from the mass of
the people. This was the major lesson gained by the leading
Bolsheviks (including Lenin and Trotsky) and has its roots in
the common Marxist error of confusing party power with working 
class power. So when Leninists point to Lenin's <b>State and
Revolution</b> as the definitive Leninist theory of the state,
anarchists simply point to the lessons Lenin himself gained
from actually conducting a revolution. Once we do, the 
slippery slope to the Leninist solution to the contradictions
inherit in the Marxist theory of the state can be seen, 
understood and combated.
<p>
<a name="sech39"><h2>H.3.9 Is the state simply an agent of economic power?</h2>
<p>
As we discussed in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">section H.3.7</a>, the Marxist theory of
the state confuses an empirical analysis of the state with
a metaphysical one. While Engels is aware that the state
developed to ensure minority class rule and, as befits its
task, evolved specific characteristics to execute that 
role, he also raised the idea that the state (<i>"as a rule"</i>) 
is <i>"the state of the most powerful, economically dominant 
class"</i> and <i>"through the medium of the state, becomes also 
the politically dominant class."</i> Thus the state can be 
considered, in essence, as <i>"nothing but a machine for the 
oppression of one class by another."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels Selected 
Works</b>, pp. 577-8 and p. 258] 
<p>
The clear implication is that the state is simply an
instrument, without special interests of its own. If this
is the case, the use of a state by the proletariat is,
therefore, unproblematic (and so the confusion between
working class self-organisation and the state we have
discussed in various sections above is irrelevant). This 
argument can lead to simplistic conclusions, such as
once a "revolutionary" government is in power in a "workers
state" we need not worry about abuses of power or even 
civil liberties (this position was commonplace in Bolshevik
ranks during the Russian Civil War, for example). It also
is at the heart of Trotsky's contortions with regards to
Stalinism, refusing to see the state bureaucracy as a new
ruling class simply because the state, by definition, could 
not play such a role.
<p>
For anarchists, this position is a fundamental weakness 
of Marxism, a sign that the mainstream Marxist position 
significantly misunderstands the nature of society and 
the needs of social revolution. However, we must stress
that anarchists would agree that state generally does
serve the interests of the economically dominant classes.
Bakunin, for example, argued that the State <i>"is authority, 
domination, and forced, organised by the property-owning
and so-called enlightened classes against the masses."</i> He 
saw the social revolution as destroying capitalism and the 
state at the same time, that is <i>"to overturn the State's 
domination, and that of the privileged classes whom it 
solely represents."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 140] 
<p>
However, anarchists do not reduce our analysis and 
understanding of the state to this simplistic Marxist
level. While being well aware that the state is the 
means of ensuring the domination of an economic elite, 
anarchists recognise that the state machine also has 
interests of its own. The state, for anarchists, is the 
delegation of power into the hands of a few. This creates, 
by its very nature, a privileged position for those at 
the top of the hierarchy:
<p><blockquote><i>
"A government [or state], that is a group of people entrusted 
with making the laws and empowered to use the collective 
force to oblige each individual to obey them, is already 
a privileged class and cut off from the people. As any 
constituted body would do, it will instinctively seek to 
extend its powers, to be beyond public control, to impose 
its own policies and to give priority to its special 
interests. Having been put in a privileged position,
the government is already at odds with the people whose 
strength it disposes of."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, p. 34]
</blockquote><p>
Thus, while Malatesta was under no doubts that under capitalism
the state was essentially <i>"the bourgeoisie's servant and 
<b>gendarme,</b>"</i> it did not mean that it did not have interests
of its own. As he put it, <i>"the government, though springing
from the bourgeoisie and its servant and protector, tends,
as with every servant and protector, to achieve its own 
emancipation and to dominate whoever it protects."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 20 and p. 22] 
<p>
Why this would happen is not hard to discover. Given that 
the state is a highly centralised, top-down structure it is 
unsurprising that it develops around itself a privileged 
class, a bureaucracy, around it. The inequality in power 
implied by the state is a source of privilege and 
oppression independent of property and economic class. 
Those in charge of the state's institutions would aim 
to protect (and expand) their area of operation, ensuring
that they select individuals who share their perspectives 
and who they can pass on their positions. By controlling the
flow of information, of personnel and resources, the members
of the state's higher circles can ensure its, and their own,
survival and prosperity. As such, politicians who are elected 
are at a disadvantage. The state is the permanent collection 
of institutions that have entrenched power structures and 
interests. The politicians come and go while the power in 
the state lies in its institutions due to their permanence. 
It is to be expected that such institutions would have their
own interests and would pursue them whenever they can. 
<p>
This would not fundamentally change in a new "workers' 
state" if it is, like all states, based on the delegation 
and centralisation of power into a few hands. Any 
"workers' government" would need a new apparatus to 
enforce its laws and decrees. It would need effective 
means of gathering and collating information. It would 
thus create <i>"an entirely new ladder of administration 
to extend it rule and make itself obeyed."</i> While a
social revolution needs mass participation, the state
limits initiative to the few who are in power and 
<i>"it will be impossible for one or even a number of
individuals to elaborate the social forms"</i> required,
which <i>"can only be the collective work of the masses
. . . Any kind of external authority will merely be
an obstacle, a hindrance to the organic work that
has to be accomplished; it will be no better than a
source of discord and of hatreds."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Words 
of a Rebel</b>, p. 169 and pp. 176-7] 
<p>
Rather than "withering away," any "workers' state" would 
tend to grow in terms of administration and so the 
government creates around itself a class of bureaucrats 
whose position is different from the rest of society. 
This would apply to production as well. Being unable to 
manage everything, the state would have to re-introduce 
hierarchical management in order to ensure its orders are 
met and that a suitable surplus is extracted from the 
workers to feed the needs of the state machine. By 
creating an economically powerful class which it can rely 
on to discipline the workforce, it would simply recreate 
capitalism anew in the form of <i>"state capitalism"</i> (this is 
precisely what happened during the Russian Revolution). To 
enforce its will onto the people it claims to represent, 
specialised bodies of armed people (police, army) would be 
required and soon created. All of which is to be expected, 
as state socialism <i>"entrusts to a few the management of 
social life and [so] leads to the exploitation and oppression 
of the masses by the few."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 46]
<p>
This process does not happen instantly, it takes time.
However, the tendency for government to escape from popular 
control and to generate privileged and powerful institutions 
around it can be seen in all revolutions, including the Paris 
Commune and the Russian Revolution. In the former, the 
Communal Council was <i>"largely ignored . . . after it was 
installed. The insurrection, the actual management of the 
city's affairs and finally the fighting against the 
Versaillese, were undertaken mainly by popular clubs, the 
neighbourhood vigilance committees, and the battalions of 
the National Guard. Had the Paris Commune (the Municipal 
Council) survived, it is extremely doubtful that it could 
have avoided conflict with these loosely formed street and 
militia formations. Indeed, by the end of April, some 
six weeks after the insurrection, the Commune constituted 
an 'all-powerful' Committee of Public Safety, a body 
redolent with memories of the Jacobin dictatorship 
and the Terror , which suppressed not only the right 
in the Great [French] Revolution of a century earlier, 
but also the left."</i> [Murray Bookchin, <b>Post-Scarcity
Anarchism</b>, pp. 148-9] A minority of council members
(essentially those active in the International) stated 
that <i>"the Paris Commune has surrendered its authority
to a dictatorship"</i> and it was <i>"hiding behind a dictatorship
that the electorate have not authorised us to accept
or to recognise."</i> [<b>The Paris Commune of 1871: The View 
from the Left</b>, Eugene Schulkind (ed.), p. 187] The 
Commune was crushed before this process could fully 
unfold, but the omens were there (although it would 
have undoubtedly been hindered by small-scale of the 
institutions involved). As we discuss in the appendix on
<a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>, a 
similar process of a "revolutionary" government escaping 
from popular control occurred right from the start of the 
Russian Revolution. The fact the Bolshevik regime lasted 
longer and was more centralised (and covered a larger area) 
ensured that this process developed fully, with the 
"revolutionary" government creating around itself the 
institutions (the bureaucracy) which finally subjected the 
politicians and party leaders to its influence and then 
domination.
<p>
Simply put, the vision of the state as merely an instrument 
of class rule blinds its supporters to the dangers of 
<b>political</b> inequality in terms of power, the dangers 
inherent in giving a small group of people power over 
everyone else. The state has certain properties <b>because 
it is a state</b> and one of these is that it creates a 
bureaucratic class around it due to its centralised, 
hierarchical nature. Within capitalism, the state bureaucracy 
is (generally) under the control of the capitalist class. 
However, to generalise from this specific case is wrong 
as the state bureaucracy is a class in itself -- and so 
trying to abolish classes without abolishing the state is 
doomed to failure:
<p><blockquote><i>
"The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged 
class: the sacerdotal class, the nobility, the bourgeoisie
-- and finally, when all the other classes have exhausted 
themselves, the class of the bureaucracy enters upon the 
stage and then the State falls, or rises, if you please to
the position of a machine."</i> [Bakunin, <b>The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 208]
</blockquote><p>
Thus the state cannot simply be considered as an instrument 
of rule by economic classes. It can be quite an effective
parasitical force in its own right, as both anthropological 
and historical evidence suggest. The former raises the 
possibility that the state arose before the classes and 
that its roots are in inequalities in power (i.e. hierarchy) 
within society, not inequalities of wealth. The latter 
points to examples of societies in which the state was 
not, in fact, an instrument of (economic) class rule but 
rather pursued an interest of its own.
<p>
As regards anthropology, Michael Taylor summarises that the 
<i>"evidence does not give [the Marxist] proposition [that the 
rise in classes caused the creation of the state] a great 
deal of support. Much of the evidence which has been offered 
in support of it shows only that the primary states, not long 
after their emergence, were economically stratified. But this 
is of course consistent also with the simultaneous rise . . . 
of political and economic stratification, or with the <b>prior</b> 
development of the state -- i.e. of <b>political</b> stratification 
-- and the creation of economic stratification by the ruling 
class."</i> [<b>Community, Anarchy and Liberty</b>, p. 132] He quotes
Elman Service on this:
<p><blockquote><i>
"In all of the archaic civilisations and historically known
chiefdoms and primitive states the 'stratification' was . . .
mainly of two classes, the governors and the governed -- 
political strata, not strata of ownership groups."</i> [quoted
by Taylor, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 133]
</blockquote><p>
Talyor argues that it the <i>"weakening of community and the 
development of gross inequalities are the <b>concomitants</b>
and <b>consequences</b> of state formation."</i> He points to the
<i>"germ of state formation"</i> being in the informal social
hierarchies which exist in tribal societies. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 133 and p. 134] Thus the state is not, initially, a 
product of economic classes but rather an independent 
development based on inequalities of social power. Harold 
Barclay, an anarchist who has studied anthropological
evidence on this matter, concurs:
<p><blockquote><i>
"In Marxist theory power derives primarily, if not exclusively,
from control of the means of production and distribution of
wealth, that is, from economic factors. Yet, it is evident that
power derived from knowledge -- and usually 'religious' style
knowledge -- is often highly significant, at least in the social
dynamics of small societies. . . Economic factors are hardly the
only source of power. Indeed, we see this in modern society as
well, where the capitalist owner does not wield total power.
Rather technicians and other specialists command it as well, 
not because of their economic wealth, but because of their
knowledge."</i> [quoted by Alan Carter, <b>Marx: A Radical Critique</b>, 
p. 191]
</blockquote><p>
If, as Bookchin summarises, <i>"hierarchies precede classes"</i> then
trying to use a hierarchical structure like the state to abolish
them is simply wishful thinking. 
<p>
As regards more recent human history, there have been numerous 
examples of the state existing without being an instrument of 
class rule. Rather, the state <b>was</b> the <i>"ruling class."</i> While 
the most obvious example is the Stalinist regimes where the 
state bureaucracy ruled over a state capitalist regime, there
have been plenty of others, as Murray Bookchin points out:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Each State is not necessarily an institutionalised system
of violence in the interests of a specific ruling class, 
as Marxism would have us believe. There are many examples
of States that <b>were</b> the 'ruling class' and whose own
interests existed quite apart from -- even in antagonism
to -- privileged, presumably 'ruling' classes in a given
society. The ancient world bears witness to distinctly 
capitalistic classes, often highly privileged and 
exploitative, that were bilked by the State, circumscribed
by it, and ultimately devoured by it -- which is in part
why a capitalist society never emerged out of the ancient 
world. Nor did the State 'represent' other class interests,
such as landed nobles, merchants, craftsmen, and the like.
The Ptolemaic State in Hellenistic Egypt was an interest
in its own right and 'represented' no other interest than
its own. The same is true of the Aztec and the Inca States
until they were replaced by Spanish invaders. Under the
Emperor Domitian, the Roman State became the principal 
'interest' in the empire, superseding the interests of
even the landed aristocracy which held such primacy in
Mediterranean society. . . 
<p>
"Near-Eastern State, like the Egyptian, Babylonian, and 
Persian, were virtually extended households of individual
monarchs . . . Pharaohs, kings, and emperors nominally
held the land (often co-jointly with the priesthood)
in the trust of the deities, who were either embodied in 
the monarch or were represented by him. The empires of
Asian and North African kings were 'households' and the
population was seen as 'servants of the palace' . . .
<p>
"These 'states,' in effect, were not simply engines of 
exploitation or control in the interests of a privileged
'class.' . . . The Egyptian State was very real but it
'represented' nothing other than itself."</i> [<b>Remaking 
Society</b>, pp. 67-8]
</blockquote><p>
Bakunin pointed to Turkish Serbia, where economically
dominant classes <i>"do not even exist -- there is only a
bureaucratic class. Thus, the Serbian state will crush
the Serbian people for the sole purpose of enabling 
Serbian bureaucrats to live a fatter life."</i> [<b>Statism
and Anarchy</b>, p. 54] Leninist Tony Cliff, in his attempt
to prove that Stalinist Russia was state capitalist and
its bureaucracy a ruling class, pointed to various 
societies in which <i>"had deep class differentiation, 
based not on private property but on state property.
Such systems existed in Pharaonic Egypt, Moslem Egypt,
Iraq, Persia and India."</i> He discusses the example of Arab 
feudalism in more detail, where <i>"the feudal lord had no 
permanent domain of his own, but a member of a class 
which collectively controlled the land and had the right
to appropriate rent."</i> This was <i>"ownership of the land by
the state"</i> rather than by individuals. [<b>State Capitalism
in Russia</b>, pp. 316-8] As such, the idea that the state 
is simply an instrument of class rule seems unsupportable. 
As Gaston Leval argued, <i>"the State, by its nature, tends 
to have a life of its own."</i> [quoted by Sam Dolgoff, <b>A 
Critique of Marxism</b>, p. 10]
<p>
Alan Carter summarises the obvious conclusion:
<p><blockquote><i>
"By focusing too much attention on the economic structure of
society and insufficient attention on the problems of political
power, Marx has left a legacy we would done better not to 
inherit. The perceived need for authoritarian and centralised
revolutionary organisation is sanctioned by Marx's theory 
because his theoretical subordination of political power to
economic classes apparently renders post-revolutionary 
political power unproblematic."</i> [<b>Marx: A Radical Critique</b>, 
p. 231]
</blockquote><p>
Given this blindness of orthodox Marxism to this issue, it
seems ironic that one of the people responsible for it also 
provides anarchists with evidence to back up our argument
that the state is not simply an instrument of class role but
rather has interests of its own. Thus we find Engels arguing
that proletariat, <i>"in order not to lose again its only just
conquered supremacy,"</i> would have <i>"to safeguard itself against 
its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without 
exception, subject to recall at any moment."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels
Selected Works</b>, p. 257] Yet, if the state was simply an 
instrument of class rule such precautions would not be 
necessary. As such, this shows an awareness that the state 
can have interests of its own, that it is not simply an 
machine of class rule. 
<p>
Aware of the obvious contradiction, he argues that the state 
<i>"is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically 
dominant class which, through the medium of the state, becomes 
the politically dominant class . . . By way of exception, 
however, periods occur in which the warring classes balance 
each other, so nearly that the state power, as ostensible 
mediator, acquires, for the moment, a certain degree of 
independence of both."</i> And points to <i>"the Bonapartism of 
the First, and still more of the Second French Empire."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 577-8] But if the state can become 
<i>"independent"</i> of economic classes, then that implies 
that it is no mere machine, no mere <i>"instrument"</i> of 
class rule. It implies the anarchist argument that the 
state has interests of its own, generated by its essential 
features and so, therefore, cannot be used by a majority 
class as part of its struggle for liberation is correct. 
Simply put, Anarchists have long <i>"realised -- feared -- that 
any State structure, whether or not socialist or based on 
universal suffrage, has a certain independence from 
society, and so may serve the interests of those within 
State institutions rather than the people as a whole or 
the proletariat."</i> [Brian Morris, <b>Bakunin: The Philosophy 
of Freedom</b>, p. 134]
<p>
Ironically, arguments and warnings about the <i>"independence"</i> 
of the state by Marxists imply that the state has interests 
of its own and cannot be considered simply as an instrument 
of class rule. Rather, it suggests that the anarchist 
analysis of the state is correct, namely that any structure
based on delegated power, centralisation and hierarchy must,
inevitably, have a privileged class in charge of it, a class 
whose position enables it to not only exploit and oppress
the rest of society but also to effectively escape from 
popular control and accountability. This is no accident.
The state is structured to enforce minority rule and 
exclude the majority.
<p>
<a name="sech310"><h2>H.3.10 Has Marxism always supported the idea of workers' councils?</h2>
<p>
One of the most widespread myths associated with Marxism is the
idea that Marxism has consistently aimed to smash the current
(bourgeois) state and replace it by a <i>"workers' state"</i> based
on working class organisations created during a revolution. 
<p>
This myth is sometimes expressed by those who should know 
better (i.e. Marxists). According to John Rees (of the 
British Socialist Workers Party) it has been a <i>"cornerstone 
of revolutionary theory"</i> that <i>"the soviet is a superior form 
of democracy because it unifies political and economic power."</i> 
This <i>"cornerstone"</i> has, apparently, existed <i>"since Marx's 
writings on the Paris Commune."</i> [<i>"In Defence of October,"</i> 
</b>International Socialism</b>, no. 52, p. 25] In fact, nothing 
could be further from the truth, as Marx's writings on the 
Paris Commune prove beyond doubt. 
<p>
The Paris Commune, as Marx himself noted, was <i>"formed 
of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage 
in the various wards of the town."</i> [<i>"The Civil War in 
France"</i>, <b>Selected Works</b>, p. 287] As Marx made clear, 
it was definitely <b>not</b> based on delegates from workplaces 
and so could <b>not</b> unify political and economic power. 
Indeed, to state that the Paris Commune was a soviet is 
simply a joke, as is the claim that Marxists supported 
soviets as revolutionary organs to smash and replace 
the state from 1871. In fact Marxists did not subscribe 
to this <i>"cornerstone of revolutionary theory"</i> until 1917 
when Lenin argued that the Soviets would be the best means 
of ensuring a Bolshevik government. Which explains why 
Lenin's use of the slogan <i>"All Power to the Soviets"</i> and
call for the destruction of the bourgeois state came as 
such a shock to his fellow Marxists. Unsurprisingly, given 
the long legacy of anarchist calls to smash the state and
their vision of a socialist society built from below by 
workers councils, many Marxists called Lenin an anarchist!
Therefore, the idea that Marxists have always supported 
workers councils' is untrue and any attempt to push this
support back to 1871 simply a farcical.
<p>
Before 1917, when Lenin claimed to have discovered what 
had eluded all the previous followers of Marx and Engels 
(including himself!), it was only anarchists (or those 
close to them such as the Russian SR-Maximalists) who 
argued that the future socialist society would be 
structurally based around the organs working class 
people themselves created in the process of the class
struggle and revolution (see sections 
<a href="secH1.html#sech14">H.1.4</a> and 
<a href="secI2.html#seci23">I.2.3</a>). 
To re-quote Bakunin:
<p><blockquote><i>
"The future social organisation must be made solely from 
the bottom up, by the free association or federation of 
workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, 
regions, nations and finally in a great federation, 
international and universal."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings</b>, pp. 170-2]
</blockquote><p>
So, ironically, the idea of the superiority of workers' councils
has existed from around the time of the Paris Commune, but in
only in Bakunin's writings and others in the libertarian wing

of the First International!
<p>
Not all Marxists are as ignorant of their political tradition
as Rees. As his fellow party member Chris Harman recognised, 
<i>"[e]ven the 1905 [Russian] revolution gave only the most 
embryonic expression of how a workers' state would in fact 
be organised. The fundamental forms of workers' power -- the 
soviets (workers' councils) -- were not recognised."</i> It was 
<i>"[n]ot until the February revolution [of 1917 that] soviets 
became central in Lenin's writings and thought."</i> [<b>Party and 
Class</b>, p. 18 and p. 19] 
<p>
Before continuing it should be noted that Harman's summary
is correct only if we are talking about the Marxist movement.
Looking at the wider revolutionary movement, two groups 
definitely <i>"recognised"</i> the importance of the soviets as 
a form of working class power. These were the anarchists 
and the Social-Revolutionary Maximalists, both of whom 
<i>"espoused views that corresponded almost word for word
with Lenin's April 1917 program of 'All power to the 
soviets.'"</i> The <i>"aims of the revolutionary far left in 
1905 . . . Lenin combined in his call for soviet power
[in 1917], when he apparently assimilated the anarchist
program to secure the support of the masses for the 
Bolsheviks."</i> [Oskar Anweiler, <b>The Soviets</b>, p. 94 and 
p. 96] Unsurprisingly, both the anarchists and Maximalists
were extremely influential in that paradigm of soviet 
power and democracy, the Kronstadt commune (see 
<a href="append42.html">"What was the Kronstadt Uprising"</a> for more details).
<p>
Thus, in anarchist circles, the soviets were must definitely  
<i>"recognised"</i> as the practical confirmation of anarchist 
ideas of working class self-organisation as being the 
framework of a socialist society. For example, the
syndicalists <i>"regarded the soviets . . . as admirable 
versions of the <b>bourses du travail</b>, but with a revolutionary
function added to suit Russian conditions. Open to all
leftist workers regardless of specific political affiliation,
the soviets were to act as nonpartisan labour councils 
improvised 'from below' . . . with the aim of bringing 
down the old regime."</i> The anarchists of <b>Khleb i Volia</b>
<i>"also likened the 1905 Petersburg Soviet -- as a nonparty
mass organisation -- to the central committee of the 
Paris Commune of 1871."</i> [Paul Avrich, <b>The Russian 
Anarchists</b>, pp. 80-1] Kropotkin argued that anarchists
should take part in the soviets as long as they <i>"are
organs of the struggle against the bourgeoisie and the
state, and not organs of authority."</i> [quoted by Graham
Purchase, <b>Evolution and Revolution</b>, p. 30]
<p>
So, if Marxists did not support workers' councils until
1917, what <b>did</b> Marxists argue should be the framework 
of a socialist society before this date? To discover this, 
we must look to Marx and Engels. Once we do, we discover 
that their works suggest that their vision of socialist 
transformation was fundamentally based on the bourgeois 
state, suitably modified and democratised to achieve this 
task. As such, rather than present the true account of the 
Marxist theory of the state Lenin interpreted various 
inexact and ambiguous statements by Marx and Engels 
(particularly from Marx's defence of the Paris Commune) to 
justify his own actions in 1917. Whether his 1917 revision 
of Marxism in favour of workers' councils as the framework 
of socialism is in keeping with the <b>spirit</b> of Marx is 
another matter of course. Given that libertarian Marxists 
(like the council communists) embraced the idea of workers' 
councils and broke with the Bolsheviks over the issue of 
whether the councils or the party had power, we can say that 
perhaps it is not. In this, they express the best in Marx. 
When faced with the Paris Commune and its libertarian 
influences he embraced it, distancing himself (for a while 
at least) with many of his previous ideas.
<p>
So what was the original (orthodox) Marxist position?
It can be seen from Lenin who, as late December 1916 
argued that <i>"Socialists are in favour of utilising the 
present state and its institutions in the struggle for 
the emancipation of the working class, maintaining also
that the state should be used for a specific form of
transition from capitalism to socialism."</i> Lenin attacked
Bukharin for <i>"erroneously ascribing this [the anarchist]
view to the socialist"</i> when he had stated socialists
wanted to <i>"abolish"</i> the state or <i>"blow it up."</i> He called
this <i>"transitional form"</i> the dictatorship of the 
proletariat, <i>"which is <b>also</b> a state."</i> [<b>Collected
Works</b>, vol. 23, p. 165] In other words, the socialist
party would aim to seize power within the existing state
and, after making suitable modifications to it, use it
to create socialism. This conquest of state power would
be achieved either by insurrection or by the ballot box,
the latter being used for political education and struggle 
under capitalism.
<p>
That this position was the orthodox one is hardly surprising,
given the actual comments of both Marx and Engels. For example,
Engels argued in 1886 while he and Marx saw <i>"the gradual 
dissolution and ultimate disappearance of that political
organisation called <b>the State</b>"</i> as <i>"<b>one</b> of the final
results of the future revolution,"</i> they <i>"at the same time
. . . have always held that . . . the proletarian class will
first have to possess itself of the organised political 
force of the State and with its aid stamp out the resistance
of the Capitalist class and re-organise society."</i> The idea
that the proletariat needs to <i>"possess"</i> the existing state
is made clear when he argues while the anarchists <i>"reverse
the matter"</i> by arguing that the revolution <i>"has to <b>begin</b> 
by abolishing the political organisation of the State,"</i>
for Marxists <i>"the only organisation the victorious working
class finds ready-made for use, is that of the State. It
may require adaptation to the new functions. But to destroy
that at such a moment, would be to destroy the only organism
by means of which the working class can exert its newly 
conquered power."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 47, p. 10] 
<p>
Obviously the only institution which the working class <i>"finds 
ready-made for use"</i> is the bourgeois state, although, as Engels 
stresses, it <i>"may require adaptation."</i> This schema is repeated
five years later, in Engels introduction to Marx's <i>"The 
Civil War in France."</i> Arguing that the state <i>"is nothing but
a machine for the oppression of one class by another"</i> he
notes that it is <i>"at best an evil inherited by the proletariat
after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose 
worst sides the victorious proletariat, just like the Commune,
cannot avoid having to lop off at once as much as possible."</i>
[<b>Marx-Engels Selected Works</b>, p. 258] Simply put, if the 
proletariat creates a <b>new</b> state system to replace the 
bourgeois one, then how can it be <i>"an evil inherited"</i> by it?
If, as Lenin argued, Marx and Engels thought that the
working class had to smash the bourgeois state and replace
it with a new one, why would it have <i>"to lop off at once as 
much as possible"</i> from the state it had just <i>"inherited"</i>?
<p>
In the same year, Engels repeats this argument in his critique 
of the draft of the Erfurt program of the German Social Democrats:
<p><blockquote><i>
"If one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working 
class can only come to power under the form of a democratic 
republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship 
of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already 
shown."</i> [quoted by David W. Lovell, <b>From Marx to Lenin</b>, p. 81]
</blockquote><p>
Clearly Engels does not speak of a "commune-republic" or anything 
close to a soviet republic, as expressed in Bakunin's work or the 
libertarian wing of the First International with their ideas of a 
"trade-union republic" or a free federation of workers' 
associations. Clearly and explicitly he speaks of the democratic 
republic, the current state (<i>"an evil inherited by the proletariat"</i>) 
which is to be seized and transformed as in the Paris Commune. 
Unsurprisingly, when Lenin comes to quote this passage in <b>State 
and Revolution</b> he immediately tries to obscure its meaning. 
<i>"Engels,"</i> he says, <i>"repeats here in a particularly striking manner 
the fundamental idea which runs like a red thread through all of 
Marx's work, namely, that the democratic republic is the nearest 
approach to the dictatorship of the proletariat."</i> [<b>Essential 
Works of Lenin</b>, p. 324] However, clearly Engels does not speak 
of the political form which <i>"is the nearest approach"</i> to the 
dictatorship, rather he speaks only of <i>"the specific form"</i> of 
the dictatorship, the <i>"only"</i> form in which <i>"our Party"</i> can come 
to power.
<p>
This explains Engels 1887 comments that in the USA the workers 
<i>"next step towards their deliverance"</i> was <i>"the formation of a 
political workingmen's party, with a platform of its own, and 
the conquest of the Capitol and the White House for its goal."</i> 
This new party <i>"like all political parties everywhere . . . aspires 
to the conquest of political power."</i> Engels then discusses the 
<i>"electoral battle"</i> going on in America. [Marx & Engels, <b>Basic 
Writings on Politics and Philosophy</b>, pp. 527-8 and p. 529] Six
years previously he had argued along the same lines as regards
England, <i>"where the industrial and agricultural working class forms
the immense majority of the people, democracy means the dominion
of the working class, neither more nor less. Let, then, that
working class prepare itself for the task in store for it -- 
the ruling of this great Empire . . . And the best way to do
this is to use the power already in their hands, the actual 
majority they possess . . . to send to Parliament men of their
own order."</i> In case this was not clear enough, he lamented that
<i>"[e]verywhere the labourer struggles for political power, for
direct representation of his class in the legislature -- 
everywhere but in Great Britain."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 24,
p. 405]
<p>
All of which, of course, fits into Marx's account of the Paris 
Commune. In that work he stresses that the Commune was formed by 
elections, by universal suffrage in a democratic republic. Once 
voted into office, the Commune then smashes the state machine 
inherited by it from the old state, recognising that <i>"the working 
class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and
wield it for its own purposes."</i> The <i>"first decree of the Commune 
. . . was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution 
for it of the armed people."</i> Thus the Commune lops off one of the 
<i>"ubiquitous organs"</i> associated with the <i>"centralised State power"</i> 
once it had inherited the state via elections. [<b>Marx-Engels 
Selected Works</b>, p. 285, p. 287 and p. 285] 
<p>
It is, of course true, that Marx expresses in his defence of the 
Commune the opinion that new <i>"Communal Constitution"</i> was to become 
a <i>"reality by the destruction of the State power"</i> yet he immediately 
argues that <i>"the merely repressive organs of the old government power 
were to be amputated"</i> and <i>"its legitimate functions were to be 
wrestles from"</i> it and <i>"restored to the responsible agents of society."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 288-9] This corresponds to Engels arguments about
removing aspects from the state inherited by the proletariat and 
signifies the <i>"destruction"</i> of the state machinery (its 
bureaucratic-military aspects) rather than the state itself.
<p>
The source of Lenin's restatement of the Marxist theory of the 
state which came as such a shock to so many Marxists can be 
found in the nature of the Paris Commune. After all, the major 
influence in terms of <i>"political vision"</i> of the Commune was 
anarchism. The <i>"rough sketch of national organisation which 
the Commune had no time to develop"</i> which Marx praises but 
does not quote was written by a follower of Proudhon. [Marx, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 288] It expounded a clearly <b>federalist</b> and 
"bottom-up" organisational structure. It clearly implied <i>"the 
destruction of the State power"</i> rather than seeking to <i>"inherit"</i> 
it. Based on this libertarian revolt, it is unsurprising that 
Marx's defence of it took on a libertarian twist. As noted by 
Bakunin, who argues that its <i>"general effect was so striking 
that the Marxists themselves, who saw their ideas upset by the 
uprising, found themselves compelled to take their hats off to 
it. They went further, and proclaimed that its programme and 
purpose where their own, in face of the simplest logic . . . 
This was a truly farcical change of costume, but they were 
bound to make it, for fear of being overtaken and left behind 
in the wave of feeling which the rising produced throughout 
the world."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 261]
<p>
This opinion was shared by almost all Marxists before 1917
(including Lenin). As Franz Mehring (considered by many as 
the best student and commentator of Marx in pre-world war 
social democracy and a extreme left-winger) argued, the 
<i>"opinions of <b>The Communist Manifesto</b> could not be 
reconciled with the praise lavished . . . on the Paris 
Commune for the vigorous fashion in which it had begun to 
exterminate the parasitic State."</i> He notes that <i>"both Marx 
and Engels were well aware of the contradiction"</i> and in 
the June 1872 preface to their work <i>"they revised their 
opinions . . . declaring that the workers could not
simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery and 
wield it for their own purposes. At a later date, and 
after the death of Marx, Engels was compelled to engage
in a struggle against the anarchist tendencies in the 
working-class movement, and he let this proviso drop 
and once again took his stand on the basis of the 
Manifesto."</i> [<b>Karl Marx</b>, p. 453] 
<p>
The fact that Marx did not mention anything about abolishing 
the existing state and replacing it with a new one in his 
contribution to the <i>"Program of the French Workers Party"</i> in 
1880 is significant. It said that the that <i>"collective 
appropriation"</i> of the means of production <i>"can only proceed 
from a revolutionary action of the class of producers -- the 
proletariat -- organised in an independent political party."</i>
This would be <i>"pursued by all the means the proletariat has 
at its disposal including universal suffrage which will thus 
be transformed from the instrument of deception that it 
has been until now into an instrument of emancipation."</i> 
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 24, p. 340] There is nothing about 
overthrowing the existing state and replacing it with a 
new state, rather the obvious conclusion which is to be 
drawn is that universal suffrage was the tool by which the 
workers would achieve socialism. It does fit in, however,
with Marx's comments in 1852 that <i>"Universal Suffrage is the 
equivalent of political power for the working class of England, 
where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population 
. . . Its inevitable result, here, is <b>the political supremacy 
of the working class.</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 11, pp. 335-6]
Or, indeed, Engels similar comments from 1881 quoted above.
<p>
It is for this reason that orthodox Marxism up until 1917
held the position that the socialist revolution would be
commenced by seizing the existing state (usually by the
ballot box, or by insurrection if that was impossible).
Martov, the leading left-Menshevik, in his discussion of
Lenin's "discovery" of the "real" Marxist theory on the 
state (in <b>State and Revolution</b>) stresses that the idea
that the state should be smashed by the workers who would
then <i>"transplant into the structure of society the forms
of <b>their own</b> combat organisations"</i> was a libertarian idea,
alien to Marx and Engels. While acknowledging that <i>"in our
time, working people take to 'the idea of the soviets' after 
knowing them as combat organisations formed in the process 
of the class struggle at a sharp revolutionary stage,"</i> he 
distances Marx and Engels quite successfully from such a 
position. As such, he makes a valid contribution to
Marxism and presents a necessary counter-argument to Lenin's
claims in <b>State and Revolution</b> (at which point, we are 
sure, nine out of ten Leninists will dismiss our argument!). 
[<b>The State and Socialist Revolution</b>, p. 42]
<p>
All this may seem a bit academic to many. Does it matter? 
After all, most Marxists today subscribe to some variation 
of Lenin's position and so, in some aspects, what Marx and
Engels really thought is irrelevant. Indeed, it is likely 
that Marx, faced with workers' councils as he was with the
Commune, would have embraced them (perhaps not, as he was
dismissive of similar ideas expressed in the libertarian 
wing of the First International). What is important is that
the idea that Marxists have always subscribed to the idea
that a social revolution would be based on the workers' own
combat organisations (be they unions, soviets or whatever)
is a relatively new one to the ideology. While Bakunin and
other anarchists argued for such a revolution, Marx and 
Engels did not. Given this, the shock which met Lenin's
arguments in 1917 can be easily understood.
<p>
Rather than being rooted in the Marxist vision of revolution,
as it has been in anarchism since the 1860s, workers councils
have played, rhetoric aside, the role of fig-leaf for party 
power (libertarian Marxism being a notable exception). They
have been embraced by its Leninist wing purely as a means of
ensuring party power. Rather than being seen as the most 
important gain of a revolution as they allow mass participation,
workers' councils have been seen, and used, simply as a means
by which the party can seize power. Once this is achieved, 
the soviets can be marginalised and ignored without affecting
the "proletarian" nature of the revolution in the eyes of the
party:
<p><blockquote><i>
"while it is true that Lenin recognised the different functions 
and democratic raison d'etre for both the soviets and his party, 
in the last analysis it was the party that was more important 
than the soviets. In other words, the party was the final 
repository of working-class sovereignty. Thus, Lenin did not 
seem to have been reflected on or have been particularly 
perturbed by the decline of the soviets after 1918."</i> [Samuel 
Farber, <b>Before Stalinism</b>, p. 212]
</blockquote><p>
This perspective can be traced back to the lack of interest
Marx and Engels expressed in the forms which a proletarian 
revolution would take, as exemplified by Engels comments on
having to <i>"lop off"</i> aspects of the state <i>"inherited"</i> by the
working class. The idea that the organisations people create 
in their struggle for freedom may help determine the outcome
of the revolution is missing. Rather, the idea that any 
structure can be appropriated and (after suitable modification) 
used to rebuild society is clear. This perspective cannot help 
take emphasis away from the mass working class organisations 
required to rebuild society in a socialist manner and place it 
on the group who will <i>"inherit"</i> the state and <i>"lop off"</i> its 
negative aspects, namely the party and the leaders in charge 
of both it and the new "workers' state." 
<p>
This focus towards the party became, under Lenin (and the 
Bolsheviks in general) a purely instrumental perspective 
on workers' councils and other organisations. They were of 
use purely in so far as they allowed the Bolshevik party to 
take power (indeed Lenin constantly identified workers' power 
and soviet power with Bolshevik power and as Martin Buber 
noted, for Lenin <b><i>"All power to the Soviets!"</i></b> meant, at bottom, 
<b><i>"All power to the Party through the Soviets!"</i></b>). It can, therefore,
be argued that his book <b>State and Revolution</b> was a means 
to use Marx and Engels to support his new found idea of the 
soviets as being the basis of creating a Bolshevik government
rather than a principled defence of workers' councils as the
framework of a socialist revolution. We discuss this issue in 
the <a href="secH3.html#sech311">next section</a>.
<p>
<a name="sech311"><h2>H.3.11 Does Marxism aim to place power into the hands of workers organisations?</h2>
<p>
The short answer depends on which branch of Marxism you mean.
<p>
If you are talking about libertarian Marxists such as council
communists, Situationists and so on, then the answer is a 
resounding "yes." Like anarchists, these Marxists see a social
revolution as being based on working class self-management 
and, indeed, criticised (and broke with) Bolshevism precisely
on this question (as can be seen from Lenin's comments in 
</b>Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder</b> on the question
of class or party dictatorship). However, if we look at the 
mainstream Marxist tradition (namely Bolshevism), the answer 
has to be an empathic "no." 
<p>
As we noted in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech14">section H.1.4</a>, 
anarchists have long argued that
the organisations created by the working class in struggle 
would be the initial framework of a free society. These organs,
created to resist capitalism and the state, would be the means 
to overthrow both as well as extending and defending the 
revolution (such bodies have included the "soviets" and "factory
committees" of the Russian Revolution, the collectives in the
Spanish revolution, popular assemblies as in the current 
Argentine revolt and the French Revolution, revolutionary 
unions and so on). Thus working class self-management is at the 
core of the anarchist vision and so we stress the importance 
(and autonomy) of working class organisations in the revolutionary
movement and the revolution itself. Anarchists work within such
bodies at the base, in the mass assemblies, and do not seek to
replace their power with that of their own organisation (see
<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>).
<p>
Leninists, in contrast, have a different perspective on such 
bodies. Rather than placing them at the heart of the revolution,
Leninism views them purely in instrumental terms -- namely, as
a means of achieving party power. Writing in 1907, Lenin argued
that <i>"Social-Democratic Party organisations may, in case of
necessity, participate in inter-party Soviets of Workers'
Delegates . . . and in congresses . . . of these organisations,
and may organise such institutions, provided this is done on
strict Party lines for the purpose of developing and strengthening
the Social-Democratic Labour Party."</i> The party would <i>"utilise"</i>
such organs <i>"for the purpose of developing the Social-Democratic
movement."</i> Significantly, given the fate of the soviets 
post-1917, Lenin notes that the party <i>"must bear in mind that if
Social-Democratic activities among the proletarian masses are
properly, effectively and widely organised, such institutions
may actually become superfluous."</i> [Marx, Engels and Lenin, 
<b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 210] Thus the means
by which working class can manage their own affairs would become
<i>"superfluous"</i> once the party was in power. How the working 
class could be considered the "ruling class" in such a society 
is hard to understand.
<p>
As Oscar Anweiler summarises in his account of the soviets
during the two Russian Revolutions:
<p><blockquote><i>
"The drawback of the new 'soviet democracy' hailed by 
Lenin in 1906 is that he could envisage the soviets only
as <b>controlled</b> organisations; for him they were instruments
by which the party controlled the working masses, rather
than true forms of a workers democracy. The basic 
contradiction of the Bolshevik soviet system -- which
purports to be a democracy of all working people but in
reality recognises only the rule of one party -- is already
contained in Lenin's interpretation of the soviets during
the first Russian revolution."</i> [<b>The Soviets</b>, p. 85]
</blockquote><p>
Thirteen years later, Lenin repeated this same vision of party 
power as the goal of revolution. In his infamous diatribe
against "Left-wing" Communism (i.e. those Marxists close 
to anarchism), Lenin argued that <i>"the correct understanding 
of a Communist of his tasks"</i> lies in <i>"correctly gauging 
the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the 
proletariat can successfully seize power, when it will be 
able during and after this seizure of power to obtain support 
from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of 
the non-proletarian toiling masses, and when, thereafter, it 
will be able to maintain, consolidate, and extend its rule, 
educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of 
the toilers."</i> He stressed that <i>"to go so far . . . as to 
draw a contrast in general between the dictatorship of the 
masses and the dictatorship of the leaders, is ridiculously 
absurd and stupid."</i> [<b>Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile 
Disorder</b>, p. 35 and p. 27] As we noted in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a>,
the Bolsheviks had this stage explicitly argued for party 
dictatorship and considered it a truism that (to re-quote 
Lenin) <i>"an organisation taking in the whole proletariat 
cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be 
exercised only by a vanguard . . . the dictatorship of the 
proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian 
organisation."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 32, p. 21]
<p>
Therefore, rather than seeing revolution being based upon 
the empowerment of working class organisation and the 
socialist society being based on this, Leninists see workers 
oorganisations in purely instrumental terms as the means of 
achieving a Leninist government:
<p><blockquote><i>
"With all the idealised glorification of the soviets as
a new, higher, and more democratic type of state, Lenin's
principal aim was revolutionary-strategic rather than
social-structural . . . The slogan of the soviets was
primarily tactical in nature; the soviets were in theory
organs of mass democracy, but in practice tools for the
Bolshevik Party. In 1917 Lenin outlined his transitional
utopia without naming the definitive factor: the party.
To understand the soviets' true place in Bolshevism, it
is not enough, therefore, to accept the idealised picture
in Lenin's state theory. Only an examination of the actual
give-and-take between Bolsheviks and soviets during the
revolution allows a correct understanding of their 
relationship."</i> [Oscar Anweiler, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 160-1]
</blockquote><p>
Simply out, Leninism confuses the party power and workers' 
power. An example of this "confusion" can be found in most 
Leninist works. For example, John Rees argues that <i>"the 
essence of the Bolsheviks' strategy . . . was to take power 
from the Provisional government and put it in the hands of 
popular organs of working class power -- a point later made 
explicit by Trotsky in his <b>Lessons of October</b>."</i> [<i>"In 
Defence of October,"</i> <b>International Socialism</b>, no. 52, 
p. 73] However, in reality, as noted in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech33">section H.3.3</a>, 
Lenin had always been clear that the essence of the 
Bolsheviks' strategy was the taking of power by the 
Bolshevik party <b>itself.</b> He explicitly argued for 
Bolshevik power during 1917, considering the soviets 
as the best means of achieving this. He constantly 
equated Bolshevik rule with working class rule. Once in 
power, this identification did not change. As such, rather 
than argue for power to be placed into <i>"the hands of popular 
organs of working class power"</i> Lenin argued this only 
insofar as he was sure that these organs would then 
<b>immediately</b> pass that power into the hands of a Bolshevik 
government. 
<p>
This explains his turn against the soviets after July 1917 
when he considered it impossible for the Bolsheviks to gain 
a majority in them. It can be seen when the Bolshevik party's 
Central Committee opposed the idea of a coalition government 
immediately after the overthrow of the Provisional Government 
in October 1917. As it explained, <i>"a purely Bolshevik 
government"</i> was <i>"impossible to refuse"</i> since <i>"a majority at 
the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets . . . handed power 
over to this government."</i> [quoted by Robert V. Daniels, <b>A
Documentary History of Communism</b>, pp. 127-8] A mere ten days 
after the October Revolution the Left Social Revolutionaries 
charged that the Bolshevik government was ignoring the Central 
Executive Committee of the Soviets, established by the second 
Congress of Soviets as the supreme organ in society. Lenin 
dismissed their charges, stating that <i>"the new power could 
not take into account, in its activity, all the rigmarole 
which would set it on the road of the meticulous observation
of all the formalities."</i> [quoted by Frederick I. Kaplan, 
<b>Bolshevik Ideology and the Ethics of Soviet Labour</b>, p. 124]
Clearly, the soviets did not have <i>"All Power,"</i> they promptly 
handed it over to a Bolshevik government (and Lenin implies 
that he was not bound in any way to the supreme organ of the 
soviets in whose name he ruled). All of which places Rees' 
assertions into the proper context and shows that the slogan 
<i>"All Power to the Soviets"</i> is used by Leninists in a radically 
different way than most people would understand by it! It also 

explains why soviets were disbanded if the opposition won 
majorities in them in early 1918:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Menshevik newspapers and activists in the trade unions, the 
Soviets, and the factories had made a considerable impact on 
a working class which was becoming increasingly disillusioned 
with the Bolshevik regime, so much so that in many places the 
Bolsheviks felt constrained to dissolve Soviets or prevent 
re-elections where Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries 
had gained majorities."</i> [Israel Getzler, <b>Martov</b>, p. 179]
</blockquote><p>
Thus the Bolsheviks expelled the Mensheviks in the context of 
political loses <b>before</b> the Civil War. The Civil War gave the
Bolsheviks an excuse and they <i>"drove them underground, just on 
the eve of the elections to the Fifth Congress of Soviets in 
which the Mensheviks were expected to make significant gains"</i> 
and while the Bolsheviks <i>"offered some formidable fictions to 
justify the expulsions"</i> there was <i>"of course no substance 
in the charge that the Mensheviks had been mixed in 
counter-revolutionary activities on the Don, in the Urals, 
in Siberia, with the Czechoslovaks, or that they had joined 
the worst Black Hundreds."</i> [Getzler, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 181]
<p>
While we will discuss this in more detail in 
<a href="append41.html#app6">section 6</a> of the appendix
on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>, 
we can state here that the facts are that the Bolsheviks only 
supported <i>"Soviet power"</i> when the soviets were Bolshevik. As 
recognised by Martov, who argued that the Bolsheviks loved 
Soviets only when they were <i>"in the hands of the Bolshevik 
party."</i> [quoted by Getzler, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 174] Which, perhaps,
explains Lenin's comment that <i>"[o]nly the development of this war 
[Kornilov's counter-revolutionary rebellion in August 1917] can bring <b>us</b> to power but we must 
<b>speak</b> of this as little as possible in our agitation 
(remembering very well that even tomorrow events may put us 
in power and then we will not let it go)."</i> [quoted by Neil 
Harding, <b>Leninism</b>, p. 253]
<p>
All this can be confirmed, unsurprisingly enough, by looking at
the essay Rees references. When studying Trotsky's <b>Lessons of 
October</b> we find the same instrumentalist approach to the 
question of the <i>"popular organs of working class power."</i> This 
is stated quite clearly by Trotsky in his essay when he argued 
that the <i>"essential aspect"</i> of Bolshevism was the <i>"training, 
tempering, and organisation of the proletarian vanguard as 
enables the latter to seize power, arms in hand."</i> As such,
the vanguard seizes power, <b>not</b> <i>"popular organs of working 
class power."</i> Indeed, the idea that the working class can
seize power itself is raised and dismissed:
<p><blockquote><i>
"But the events have proved that without a party capable of 
directing the proletarian revolution, the revolution itself 
is rendered impossible. The proletariat cannot seize power by 
a spontaneous uprising . . . there is nothing else that can
serve the proletariat as a substitute for its own party."</i>
</blockquote><p>
Hence <i>"popular organs of working class power"</i> are not considered 
as the <i>"essence"</i> of Bolshevism, rather the <i>"fundamental instrument 
of proletarian revolution is the party."</i> Popular organs are 
seen purely in instrumental terms, always discussing such organs
of "workers' power" in terms of the strategy and program of the 
party, not in terms of the value that such organs have as forms
of working class self-management of society. 
<p> 
This can be clearly seen from Trotsky's discussion of the
"October Revolution" of 1917 in <b>Lessons of October</b>. 
Commenting on the Bolshevik Party conference of April 1917, 
he states that the <i>"whole of . . . [the] Conference was devoted 
to the following fundamental question: Are we heading toward 
the conquest of power in the name of the socialist revolution 
or are we helping (anybody and everybody) to complete the 
democratic revolution? . . . Lenin's position was this: . . . 
the capture of the soviet majority; the overthrow of the 
Provisional Government; the seizure of power through the 
soviets."</i> Note, <b>through</b> the soviets not <b>by</b> the soviets, 
thus indicating the fact the Party would hold the real power, 
not the soviets of workers' delegates. This is confirmed when 
Trotsky states that <i>"to prepare the insurrection and to carry 
it out under cover of preparing for the Second Soviet Congress 
and under the slogan of defending it, was of inestimable 
advantage to us"</i> and that it was <i>"one thing to prepare an 
armed insurrection under the naked slogan of the seizure of 
power by the party, and quite another thing to prepare and 
then carry out an insurrection under the slogan of defending 
the rights of the Congress of Soviets."</i> The Soviet Congress 
just provided <i>"the legal cover"</i> for the Bolshevik plans 
rather than a desire to see the Soviets actually start 
managing society. [<b>The Lessons of October</b>]
<p>
Thus we have the <i>"seizure of power through the soviets"</i>
with <i>"an armed insurrection under the naked slogan of
the seizure of power by the party"</i> being hidden by 
<i>"the slogan"</i> (<i>"the legal cover"</i>) of defending the Soviets!
Hardly a case of placing power in the hands of working 
class organisations. Trotsky <b>does</b> note that in 1917 
the <i>"soviets had to either disappear entirely or take 
real power into their hands."</i> However, he immediately 
adds that <i>"they could take power . . . only as the 
dictatorship of the proletariat directed by a single party."</i> 
Clearly, the <i>"single party"</i> has the real power, <b>not</b> 
the soviets. Unsurprisingly, in practice, the rule of
<i>"a single party"</i> also amounted to the soviets effectively
disappearing as they quickly became mere ciphers for party 
rule. Soon the <i>"direction"</i> by <i>"a single party"</i> became
the dictatorship of that party <b>over</b> the soviets, which
(it should be noted) Trotsky defended wholeheartedly until
his death (see <a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a>).
<p>
This cannot be considered as a one-off. Trotsky repeated this 
analysis in his <b>History of the Russian Revolution</b>, when he 
stated that the <i>"question, what mass organisations were to 
serve the party for leadership in the insurrection, did not 
permit an <b>a priori,</b> much less a categorical, answer."</i> Thus 
the <i>"mass organisations"</i> serve the party, not vice versa. This 
instrumentalist perspective can be seen when Trotsky notes that 
when <i>"the Bolsheviks got a majority in the Petrograd Soviet, 
and afterward a number of others,"</i> the <i>"phrase 'Power to the 
Soviets' was not, therefore, again removed from the order of 
the day, but received a new meaning: All power to the <b>Bolshevik</b> 
soviets."</i> This meant that the <i>"party was launched on the road 
of armed insurrection through the soviets and in the name of 
the soviets."</i> As he put it in his discussion of the July days 
in 1917, the army <i>"was far from ready to raise an insurrection 
in order to give power to the Bolshevik Party."</i> Ultimately, 
<i>"the state of popular consciousness . . . made impossible the 
seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in July."</i> [vol. 2, p. 303, 
p. 307, p. 78 and p. 81] So much for <i>"all power to the Soviets"</i>! 
He even quotes Lenin: <i>"The Bolsheviks have no right to await 
the Congress of Soviets. They ought to seize the power right 
<b>now.</b>"</i> Ultimately, the <i>"Central Committee adopted the motion
of Lenin as the only thinkable one: to form a government of
the Bolsheviks only."</i> [vol. 3, pp. 131-2 and p. 299] 
<p>
In case anyone is in doubt what Trotsky meant, he clarified 
it in the book he was writing when he was assassinated: <i>"After 
eight months of inertia and of democratic chaos, came the 
dictatorship of the Bolsheviks."</i> [<b>Stalin</b>, vol. 2, p. 242]
This is confirmed by other sources:
<p><blockquote><i>

"Within six weeks of the October revolution, Gorky's newspaper
<b>Novaya Zhizn</b> lamented the rapidity with which life had run
out of the Soviet movement: 'The slogan "All power to the
Soviets,"' it concluded, 'had actually been transformed into
the slogan "All power to the few Bolsheviks" . . . The Soviets
decay, become enervated, and from day to day lose more of
their prestige in the ranks of democracy.' The initial heroic
stage -- the stage of mass involvement and unsullied dreams
-- was already over."</i> [Neil Harding, <b>Leninism</b>, p. 253]
</blockquote><p>
So where does this leave Rees' assertion that the Bolsheviks
aimed to put power into the hands of working class organisations?
Clearly, Rees' summary of both Trotsky's essay and the <i>"essence"</i> 
of Bolshevism leave a lot to be desired. As can be seen, the 
<i>"essence"</i> of Trotsky's essay and of Bolshevism is the importance 
of party power, not workers' power (as recognised by other 
members of the SWP: <i>"The masses needed to be profoundly 
convinced that there was no alternative to Bolshevik power."</i>
[Tony Cliff, <b>Lenin</b>, vol. 2, p. 265]). Trotsky even provides 
us with an analogy which effectively and simply refutes Rees'
claims. <i>"Just as the blacksmith cannot seize the red hot
iron in his naked hand,"</i> Trotsky asserts, <i>"so the proletariat
cannot directly seize power; it has to have an organisation
accommodated to this task."</i> While paying lip service to 
the soviets as the organisation <i>"by means of which the 
proletariat can both overthrow the old power and replace
it,"</i> he adds that <i>"the soviets by themselves do not settle
the question"</i> as they may <i>"serve different goals according
to the programme and leadership. The soviets receive their
programme from the party . . . the revolutionary party 
represents the brain of the class. The problem of 
conquering the power can be solved only by a definite
combination of party with soviets."</i> [<b>The History of the 
Russian Revolution</b>, vol. 3, pp. 160-1 and p. 163] 
<p>
Thus the key organisation was the party, <b>not</b> the mass 
organisations of the working class. Indeed, as we discussed 
in <a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a>, 
Trotsky was quite explicit that such 
organisations could only become the state form of the 
proletariat under the party dictatorship. Significantly, 
Trotsky fails to indicate what would happen when these two 
powers clash. Certainly Trotsky's role in the Russian 
revolution tells us that the power of the party was more 
important to him than democratic control by workers through 
mass bodies (see the appendices on
<a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> and 
<a href="append42.html">"What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?"</a>). Indeed, as we have shown in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a>, Trotsky 
explicitly argued that a state was required to overcome the 
<i>"wavering"</i> in the working class which could be expressed by 
democratic decision making.
<p>
Given this legacy of viewing workers' organisations in 
purely instrumental terms, the opinion of Martov (the
leading left-Menshevik during the Russian Revolution)
seems appropriate. He argued that <i>"[a]t the moment when 
the revolutionary masses expressed their emancipation from 
the centuries old yoke of the old State by forming 
'autonomous republics of Kronstadt' and trying Anarchist 
experiments such as 'workers' control,' etc. -- at that 
moment, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat and the poorest 
peasantry' (said to be incarnated in the real dictatorship of 
the opposed 'true' interpreters of the proletariat and the 
poorest peasantry: the chosen of Bolshevist Communism) could 
only consolidate itself by first dressing itself in such 
Anarchist and anti-State ideology."</i> [<b>The State and Socialist 
Revolution</b>, p. 47] As can be seen, Martov has a point. As the 
text used as evidence that the Bolsheviks aimed to give power 
to workers organisations shows, this was <b>not</b> an aim of the 
Bolshevik party. Rather, such workers organs were seen purely 
as a means to the end of party power. 
<p>
It is for this reason that anarchists argue for direct
working class self-management of society. When we argue
that working class organisations must be the framework of
a free society they mean it. We do not equate party 
power with working class power or think that <i>"All power
to the Soviets"</i> is possible if they immediately delegate
that power to the leaders of the party. This is for
obvious reasons:
<p><blockquote><i>
"If the revolutionary means are out of their hands,
if they are in the hands of a techno-bureaucratic elite,
then such an elite will be in a position to direct to
their own benefit not only the course of the revolution,
but the future society as well. If the proletariat are
to <b>ensure</b> that an elite will not control the future
society, they must prevent them from controlling the
course of the revolution."</i> [Alan Carter, <b>Marx: A
Radical Critique</b>, p. 165]
</blockquote><p>
Thus the slogan <i>"All power to the Soviets"</i> for anarchists
means exactly that -- organs for the working class to run 
society directly, based on mandated, recallable delegates. 
As such, this slogan fitted perfectly with our ideas, as 
anarchists had been arguing since the 1860's that such 
workers' councils were both a weapon of class struggle 
against capitalism and the framework of the future 
libertarian society. For the Bolshevik tradition, that 
slogan simply means that a Bolshevik government will be 
formed over and above the soviets. The difference is important, 
<i>"for the Anarchists declared, if 'power' really should belong 
to the soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik party, 
and if it should belong to that Party, as the Bolsheviks 
envisaged, it could not belong to the soviets."</i> [Voline,
<b>The Unknown Revolution</b>, p. 213] Reducing the soviets to 
simply executing the decrees of the central (Bolshevik) 
government and having their All-Russian Congress be able 
to recall the government (i.e. those with <b>real</b> power) 
does not equal <i>"all power,"</i> quite the reverse -- the 
soviets will simply be a fig-leaf for party power.
<p>
In summary, rather than aim to place power into the hands of 
workers' organisations, most Marxists do not. Their aim is to
place power into the hands of the party. Workers' organisations
are simply means to this end and, as the Bolshevik regime showed,
if they clash with that goal, they will be simply be disbanded.
However, we must stress that not all Marxist tendencies subscribe 
to this. The council communists, for example, broke with the
Bolsheviks precisely over this issue, the difference between
party and class power.
<p>
<a name="sech312"><h2>H.3.12 Is big business the precondition for socialism?</h2>
<p>
A key idea in most forms of Marxism is that the evolution
of capitalism itself will create the preconditions for
socialism. This is because capitalism tends to result in
big business and, correspondingly, increased numbers of
workers subject to the <i>"socialised"</i> production process
within the workplace. The conflict between the socialised
means of production and their private ownership is at the
heart of the Marxist case for socialism. Engels writes:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Then came the concentration of the means of production
and of the producers in large workshops and manufacturies,
their transformation into actual socialised means of
production and socialised producers. But the socialised
producers and means of production and their products 
were still treated, after this change, just as they
had been before . . . the owner of the instruments of
labour . . . appropriated to himself . . . exclusively
the product of the <b>labour of others.</b> Thus, the product
now produced socially were not appropriated by those who
actually set in motion the means of production and 
actually produced the commodities, but by the 
<b>capitalists.</b> . . . The mode of production is subjected
to this [individual or private] form of appropriation,
although it abolishes the conditions upon which the 
latter rests.
<p>
"This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of 
production its capitalistic character, <b>contains the
germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today.</b>"</i>
[<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 704]
</blockquote><p>
It is the economic crises of capitalism which show this
contradiction between socialised production and capitalist
appropriation the best. Indeed, the <i>"fact that the 
socialised organisation of production within the factory
has developed so far that it has become incompatible
with the anarchy of production in society, which exists
side by side with and dominates it, is brought home to
the capitalists themselves by the violent concentration
of capital that occurs during crises."</i> The pressures of
socialised production results in capitalists merging 
their properties <i>"in a particular branch of industry
in a particular country"</i> into <i>"a trust, a union for 
the purpose of regulating production."</i> In this way,
<i>"the production of capitalistic society capitulates 
to the production upon a definite plan of the invading
socialistic society."</i> This <i>"transformation"</i> can take 
the form of <i>"joint-stock companies and trusts, or
into state ownership."</i> Even state ownership does not
change the <i>"capitalist relation"</i> although this does
have <i>"concealed within it"</i> the <i>"technical conditions 
that form the elements of that solution."</i> This <i>"shows
itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. <b>The
proletariat seizes political power and turns the means
of production into state property.</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 709, 
p. 710, p. 711, p. 712 and p. 713]
<p>
Thus the centralisation and concentration of production 
into bigger and bigger units, into big business, is seen 
as the evidence of the need for socialism. It provides
the objective grounding for socialism, and, in fact, this 
analysis is what makes Marxism <i>"scientific socialism."</i>
This process explains how human society develops through
time:
<p><blockquote><i>
"In the social production of their life, men enter into
definite relations that are indispensable and independent
of their will, relations of production which correspond
to a definite stage of development of their material 
productive forces. The sum total of these relations of
production constitutes the economic structure of society,
the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political
superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of
social consciousness. . . At a certain stage of their
development, the material productive forces come in 
conflict with the existing relations of production or
-- what is but a legal expression for the same thing
-- with the property relations within which they have
been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the
productive forces these relations turn into their 
fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution.
With the change of the economic foundation the entire 
immense superstructure is more or less rapidly 
transformed."</i> [Marx, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 4-5]
</blockquote><p>
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that 
socialism will come about due to tendencies inherent 
within the development of capitalism. The <i>"socialisation"</i>
of labour implied by collective labour within a firm
grows steadily as capitalist companies grow larger and
larger. The objective need for socialism is therefore 
created and so, for most Marxists, <b><i>"big is beautiful."</i></b>
Indeed, some Leninists have invented terminology to 

describe these aspects of the <i>"invading socialistic 
society"</i> associated with the rise of big business. They
contrast the <i>"law of planning"</i> associated with the
conscious planning of economic activity on a wider and
wider scale by large companies to the <i>"law of value"</i> 
which operates in the market. In other words, that the 
increased size of capital means that more and more of 
the economy is subject to the despotism of the owners 
and managers of capital and so the <i>"anarchy"</i> of the 
market is slowly replaced with the conscious planning 
of resources. Marxists sometimes call this the <i>"objective 
socialisation of labour"</i> (to use Mandel's term).
<p>
Therefore, there is a tendency for Marxists to see the 
increased size and power of big business as providing 
objective evidence for socialism, which will bring these
socialistic tendencies within capitalism to full light
and full development. Needless to say, most will argue 
that socialism, while developing planning fully, will 
replace the autocratic and hierarchical planning of big 
business with democratic, society-wide planning. 
<p>
This position, for anarchists, has certain problems 
associated with it. One key drawback, as we discuss in 
the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech313">next section</a>, 
is it focuses attention away from the 
internal organisation within the workplace and industry 
onto ownership and links between economic units. It ends 
up confusing capitalism with the market relations between 
firms rather than identifying it with its essence, the 
labour market and the wage slavery this generates. This
meant that many Marxists considered that the basis of a
socialist economy was guaranteed once property was 
nationalised. The anarchist critique that this simply
replaced a multitude of bosses with one, the state,
was (and is) ignored.
<p>
The other key problem is that such a perspective tends to 
dismiss as irrelevant the way production is managed. Rather
than seeing socialism as being dependent on workers'
management of production, this position ends up seeing
socialism as being dependent on organisational links 
between workplaces, as exemplified by big business under
capitalism. Thus the <i>"relations of production"</i> which 
matter are <b>not</b> those associated with wage labour but
rather those associated with the market. This can be seen
from the famous comment in <b>The Manifesto of the Communist
Party</b>. The bourgeoisie, it argues <i>"cannot exist without 
constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, 
and thereby the relations of production, and with them 
the whole relations of society."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>,
p. 476] But the one relation of production it <b>cannot</b>
revolutionise is the one generated by the wage labour 
at the heart of capitalism, the hierarchical relations
at the point of production. As such, it is clear that
by <i>"relations of production"</i> Marx and Engels meant 
something else than wage slavery, the internal 
organisation of what they term <i>"socialised production."</i>
<p>
Capitalism is, in general, as dynamic as Marx and Engels 
stressed. It transforms the means of production, the 
structure of industry and the links between workplaces 
constantly. Yet it only modifies the form of the 
organisation of labour, not its content. No matter how 
it transforms machinery and the internal structure of 
companies, the workers are still wage slaves. At best, 
it simply transforms much of the hierarchy which governs 
the workforce into hired managers. This does not transform 
the fundamental social relationship of capitalism, however. 
Thus the <i>"relations of production"</i> which prefigure socialism 
is, precisely, those associated with the <i>"socialisation of 
the labour process"</i> which occurs <b>within</b> capitalism and 
are no way antagonistic to it. 
<p>
This is confirmed when Marx, in his polemic against 
Proudhon, argues that social relations <i>"are closely 
bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new 
productive forces men change their mode of production; 
and in changing their mode of production, in changing 
the way of earning their living, they change their 
social relations. The hand-mill gives you society
with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the
industrial capitalist."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 6, 
p. 166] On the face of it, this had better <b>not</b> be 
true. After all, the aim of socialism is to expropriate 
the property of the industrial capitalist. If the social 
relationships <b>are</b> dependent on the productive forces 
then, clearly, socialism is impossible as it will have 
to be based, initially, on the legacy of capitalism. 
Fortunately, the way a workplace is managed is not 
predetermined by the technological base of society. As 
is obvious, a steam-mill can be operated by a co-operative, 
so making the industrial capitalist redundant. The claim 
that a given technological-level implies a specific social 
structure is, therefore, wrong. However, it does suggest
that our comments that, for Marx and Engels, the new <i>"social 
relationships"</i> which develop under capitalism which imply 
socialism are relations between workplaces, <b>not</b> those 
between individuals and classes are correct. The 
implications of this position because clear during the 
Russian revolution.
<p>
Later Marxists built upon this "scientific" groundwork. Lenin,
for example, argued that <i>"the difference between a socialist 
revolution and a bourgeois revolution is that in the latter 
case there are ready made forms of capitalist relationships; 
Soviet power [in Russia] does not inherit such ready made 
relationships, if we leave out of account the most developed 
forms of capitalism, which, strictly speaking, extended to a 
small top layer of industry and hardly touched agriculture."</i>
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 27, p. 90] Thus, for Lenin, <i>"socialist"</i> 
relationships are generated within big business, relationships 
"socialism" would "inherit" and universalise. As such, his
comments fit in with the analysis of Marx and Engels we have
presented above. However, his comments also reveal that Lenin 
had no idea that socialism meant the transformation of the 
relations of production, i.e. workers managing their own 
activity. This, undoubtedly, explains the systematic 
undermining of the factory committee movement by the
Bolsheviks in favour of state control we discuss in 
<a href="append41.html#app10">section 10</a> of the 
appendix on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>.
<p>
The idea that socialism involved simply taking over the state 
and nationalising the <i>"objectively socialised"</i> means of
production can be seen in both mainstream social-democracy
and its Leninist child. Hilferding, for example, wrote 
<b>Finance Capital</b> which argued that capitalism was evolving 
into a highly centralised economy, run by big banks and big 
firms. All what was required to turn this into socialism 
would be its nationalisation:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Once finance capital has brought the most important branches of
production under its control, it is enough for society, through 
its conscious executive organ -- the state conquered by the working 
class -- to seize finance capital in order to gain immediate control 
of these branches of production. . . taking possession of six large 
Berlin banks would . . . greatly facilitate the initial phases of 
socialist policy during the transition period, when capitalist 
accounting might still prove useful."</i> [pp. 367-8] 
</blockquote><p>
Lenin basically disagreed with this only in-so-far as the party 
of the proletariat would take power via revolution rather than 
by election (<i>"the state conquered by the working class"</i> equals 
the election of a socialist party). Lenin took it for granted 
that the difference between Marxists and anarchists is that 
<i>"the former stand for centralised, large-scale communist 
production, while the latter stand for disconnected small 
production."</i> The obvious implication of this is that anarchist 
views <i>"express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is 
striving with irresistible force towards the socialisation of 
labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the 
domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated 
small producer."</i> [Marx, Engels and Lenin, <b>Anarchism and 
Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 261 and p. 205]
<p>
As we discuss in more detail in 
<a href="append41.html#app8">section 8</a> of the appendix on
<a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>, Lenin applied
this perspective during the Russian Revolution. For example,
he argued in 1917 that his immediate aim was for a <i>"state 
capitalist"</i> economy, this being a necessary stage to 
socialism. As he put it, <i>"socialism is merely the next step 
forward from state-capitalist monopoly . . . socialism is 
merely state-capitalist monopoly <b>which is made to serve the 
interests of the whole people</b> and has to that extent 
<b>ceased</b> to be capitalist monopoly."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>, 
vol. 2, p. 211]
<p>
The Bolshevik road to "socialism" ran through the terrain 
of state capitalism and, in fact, simply built upon its 
institutionalised means of allocating recourses and 
structuring industry. As Lenin put it, <i>"the modern state 
possesses an apparatus which has extremely close connections 
with the banks and syndicates, an apparatus which performs an 
enormous amount of accounting and registration work . . . This 
apparatus must not, and should not, be smashed. It must be 
wrestled from the control of the capitalists,"</i> it <i>"must be 
subordinated to the proletarian Soviets"</i> and <i>"it must be 
expanded, made more comprehensive, and nation-wide."</i> This 
meant that the Bolsheviks would <i>"not invent the organisational 
form of work, but take it ready-made from capitalism"</i> and 
<i>"borrow the best models furnished by the advanced countries."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 365 and p. 369]
<p>
The institutional framework of capitalism would be utilised 
as the principal (almost exclusive) instruments of "socialist" 
transformation. <i>"<b>Without big banks Socialism would be 
impossible,</b>"</i> argued Lenin, as they <i>"are the 'state apparatus' 
which we need to bring about socialism, and which we <b>take 
ready-made</b> from capitalism; our task here is merely to 
<b>lop off</b> what capitalistically mutilates this excellent 
apparatus, to make it <b>even bigger,</b> even more democratic, 
even more comprehensive. A single State Bank, the biggest 
of the big . . . will constitute as much as nine-tenths of 
the <b>socialist</b> apparatus. This will be country-wide 
book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production 
and distribution of goods."</i> While this is <i>"not fully a 
state apparatus under capitalism,"</i> it <i>"will be so with us, 
under socialism."</i> For Lenin, building socialism was easy. 
This <i>"nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus"</i> would be 
created <i>"at one stroke, by a single decree."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 365] 
<p>
Once in power, the Bolsheviks implemented this vision of 
socialism being built upon the institutions created by 
monopoly capitalism. Moreover, Lenin quickly started to 
advocate and implement the most sophisticated capitalist 
methods of organising labour, including <i>"one-man management"</i> 
of production, piece-rates and Taylorism (<i>"scientific 
management"</i>). This was not done accidentally or because 
no alternative existed (as we discuss in 
<a href="append41.html#app12">section 12</a> of the appendix
on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>). 
As Gustav Landuer commented, when mainstream Marxists 
<i>"call the capitalist factory system a social production 
. . . we know the real implications of their socialist 
forms of labour."</i> [<b>For Socialism</b>, p. 70] As can be 
seen, this glorification of large-scale, state-capitalist 
structures can be traced back to Marx and Engels, while 
Lenin's support for capitalist production techniques can
be explained by mainstream Marxism's lack of focus on the 
social relationships at the point of production. 
<p>
For anarchists, the idea that socialism can be built on the
framework provided to us by capitalism is simply ridiculous.
Capitalism has developed industry and technology to further the
ends of those with power, namely capitalists and managers. Why
should they use that power to develop technology and industrial
structures which leads to workers' self-management and power 
rather than technologies and structures which enhance their own 
position vis--vis their workers and society as a whole? As 
such, technological and industrial development is not <i>"neutral"</i> 
or just the <i>"application of science."</i> They are shaped by class
struggle and class interest and cannot be used for different
ends. Simply put, socialism will need to develop <b>new</b> forms
of economic organisation based on socialist principles. As
such, the concept that monopoly capitalism paves the way 
for socialist society is rooted in the false assumption that
the forms of social organisation accompanying capital 
concentration are identical with the socialisation of 
production, that the structures associated with collective 
labour under capitalism are the same as those required under
socialism is achieve <b>genuine</b> socialisation. This false 
assumption, as can be seen, goes back to Engels and was
shared by both Social-Democracy and Leninism despite their
other differences.
<p>
While anarchists are inspired by a vision of a non-capitalist, 
decentralised, diverse society based on appropriate technology 
and appropriate scale, mainstream Marxism is not. Rather, it 
sees the problem with capitalism is that its institutions are 
not centralised and big enough. As Alexander Berkman correctly 
argues: 
<p><blockquote><i>
"The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution 
is unfortunately too little appreciated. . . Most people 
are still in the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that 
centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They 
close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is 
achieved at the cost of the workers' limb and life, that 
the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere industrial cog, 
deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in a system 
of centralisation the administration of industry becomes 
constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful 
bureaucracy of industrial overlords. It would indeed be 
the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim at such 
a result. It would mean the creation of a new master class."</i> 
[<b>The ABC of Anarchism</b>, pp. 80-1]
</blockquote><p>
That mainstream Marxism is soaked in capitalist ideology 
can be seen from Lenin's comments that when <i>"the separate 
establishments are amalgamated into a single syndicate, 
this economy [of production] can attain tremendous 
proportions, as economic science teaches us."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 200] Yes, <b>capitalist</b> economic science, based on 
<b>capitalist</b> definitions of efficiency and economy and
on <b>capitalist</b> criteria! That Bolshevism bases itself 
on centralised, large scale industry because it is more 
"efficient" and "economic" suggests nothing less than 
that its "socialism" will be based on the same priorities 
of capitalism. This can be seen from Lenin's idea that 
Russia had to learn from the advanced capitalist countries, 
that there was only one way to develop production and that 
was by adopting capitalist methods of "rationalisation" 
and management. In the words of Luigi Fabbri:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Marxist communists, especially Russian ones, are beguiled by
the distant mirage of big industry in the West or America and
mistake for a system of production what is only a typically
capitalist means of speculation, a means of exercising 
oppression all the more securely; and they do not appreciate
that that sort of centralisation, far from fulfilling the 
real needs of production, is, on the contrary, precisely
what restricts it, obstructs it and applies a brake to it
in the interests of capital.
<p>
"Whenever [they] talk about 'necessity of production' they
make no distinction between those necessities upon which 
hinge the procurement of a greater quantity and higher 
quality of products -- this being all that matters from 
the social and communist point of view -- and the necessities
inherent in the bourgeois regime, the capitalists' necessity
to make more profit even should it mean producing less to
do so. If capitalism tends to centralise its operations, 
it does so not for the sake of production, but only for
the sake of making and accumulating more money."</i> [<i>"Anarchy 
and 'Scientific' Communism"</i>, in <b>The Poverty of Statism</b>, 
pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), pp. 21-22]
</blockquote><p>
Efficiency, in other words, does not exist independently of 
a given society or economy. What is considered "efficient" 
under capitalism may be the worse form of inefficiency in a
free society. The idea that socialism may have <b>different</b> 
priorities, need <b>different</b> methods of organising production, 
have <b>different</b> visions of how an economy was structured than 
capitalism, is absent in mainstream Marxism. Lenin thought that 
the institutions of bourgeois economic power, industrial 
structure and capitalist technology and techniques could be 
"captured" and used for other ends. Ultimately, though, 
capitalist means and organisations can only generate capitalist 
ends. It is significant that the <i>"one-man management,"</i> 
piece-work, Taylorism, etc. advocated and implemented under 
Lenin are usually listed by his followers as evils of Stalinism 
and as proof of its anti-socialist nature. 
<p>
Equally, it can be argued that part of the reason why large 
capitalist firms can "plan" production on a large scale is 
because they reduce the decision making criteria to a few 
variables, the most significant being profit and loss. That
such simplification of input data may result in decisions 
which harm people and the environment goes without a saying. 
<i>"The lack of context and particularity,"</i> James C. Scott
correctly notes, <i>"is not an oversight; it is the necessary 
first premise of any large-scale planning exercise. To the
degree that the subjects can be treated as standardised 
units, the power of resolution in the planning exercise is
enhanced. Questions posed within these strict confines can
have definitive, quantitative answers. The same logic applies
to the transformation of the natural world. Questions about 
the volume of commercial wood or the yield of wheat in 
bushels permit more precise calculations than questions 
about, say, the quality of the soil, the versatility and
taste of the grain, or the well-being of the community. The 
discipline of economics achieves its formidable resolving
power by transforming what might otherwise be considered
qualitative matters into quantitative issues with a single
metric and, as it were, a bottom line: profit or loss."</i>
[<b>Seeing like a State</b>, p. 346] Whether a socialist society 
could factor in all the important inputs which capitalism
ignores within an even more centralised planning structure 
is an important question. This does not mean that anarchists 
argue for "small-scale" production as many Marxists, like
Lenin, assert (as we prove in 
<a href="secI3.html#seci38">section I.3.8</a>, anarchists 
have always argued for <b>appropriate</b> levels of production 
and scale). It is simply to raise the possibility of what
works under capitalism make be undesirable from a perspective
which values people and planet instead of power and profit. 
<p>
As should be obvious, anarchism is based on critical evaluation 
of technology and industrial structure, rejecting the whole 
capitalist notion of "progress" which has always been part of 
justifying the inhumanities of the status quo. Just because 
something is rewarded by capitalism it does not mean that it makes 
sense from a human or ecological perspective. This informs our 
vision of a free society and the current struggle. We have long 
argued that that capitalist methods cannot be used for socialist 
ends. In our battle to democratise and socialise the workplace, 
in our awareness of the importance of collective initiatives by 
the direct producers in transforming their work situation, we 
show that factories are not merely sites of production, but 
also of reproduction -- the reproduction of a certain structure 
of social relations based on the division between those who give 
orders and those who take them, between those who direct and 
those who execute.
<p>
It goes without saying that anarchists recognise that a social 
revolution will have to start with the industry and technology 
which is left to it by capitalism and that this will have to be 
expropriated by the working class (this expropriation will, of
course, involve transforming it and, in all likelihood, rejecting
of numerous technologies, techniques and practices considered
as "efficient" under capitalism). This is <b>not</b> the issue. The 
issue is who expropriates it and what happens to it next. For 
anarchists, the means of life are expropriated directly by
society, for most Marxists they are expropriated by the state. 
For anarchists, such expropriation is based workers' 
self-management and so the fundamental capitalist <i>"relation  
of production"</i> (wage labour) is abolished. For most Marxists, 
state ownership of production is considered sufficient to ensure 
the end of capitalism (with, if we are lucky, some form of 
<i>"workers' control"</i> over those state officials who do management 
production -- see <a href="secH3.html#sech314">section H.3.14</a>).
<p>
In contrast to the mainstream Marxist vision of socialism 
being based around the institutions inherited from capitalism, 
anarchists have raised the idea that the <i>"free commune"</i> would 
be the <i>"medium in which the ideas of modern Socialism may 
come to realisation."</i> These <i>"communes would federate"</i> into 
wider groupings. Labour unions (or other working class organs
created in the class struggle such as factory committees)
were <i>"not only an instrument for the improvement of the 
conditions of labour, but also of becoming an organisation 
which might . . . take into its hands the management of 
production."</i> Large labour associations would <i>"come into 
existence for the inter-communal service[s]."</i> Such communes 
and workers' organisations as the basis of <i>"Socialist forms 
of life could find a much easier realisation"</i> than the 
<i>"seizure of all industrial property by the State, and 
the State organisation of agriculture and industry."</i> Thus 
railway network <i>"could be much better handled by a Federated 
Union of railway employees, than by a State organisation."</i> 
Combined with co-operation <i>"both for production and for 
distribution, both in industry and agriculture,"</i> workers' 
self-management of production would create <i>"samples of 
the bricks"</i> of the future society (<i>"even samples of some 
of its rooms"</i>). [Kropotkin, <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, 
pp. 21-23]
<p>
This means that anarchists also root our arguments for
socialism in a scientific analysis of tendencies within
capitalism. However, in opposition to the analysis of
mainstream Marxism which focuses on the objective tendencies
within capitalist development, anarchists emphasis the 
<b>oppositional</b> nature of socialism to capitalism. Both 
the <i>"law of value"</i> and the <i>"law of planning"</i> are tendencies
<b>within</b> capitalism, that is aspects of capitalism. Anarchists 
encourage class struggle, the direct conflict of working class 
people against the workings of all capitalism's "laws". This 
struggle produces <b>mutual aid</b> and the awareness that we can 
care best for our own welfare if we <b>unite</b> with others -- what
we can loosely term the <i>"law of co-operation"</i>. This law, in 
contrast to the Marxian <i>"law of planning"</i> is based on working 
class subjectively and develops within society only in 
<b>opposition</b> to capitalism. As such, it provides the necessary 
understanding of where socialism will come from, from <b>below</b>, 
in the spontaneous self-activity of the oppressed fighting 
for their freedom.
<p>
This means that the basic structures of socialism will be 
the organs created by working class people in their struggles 
against exploitation and oppress (see sections 
<a href="secH1.html#sech14">H.1.4</a> 
and <a href="secI2.html#seci23">I.2.3</a> 
for more details). Gustav Landauer's basic insight is correct 
(if his means were not totally so) when he wrote that <i>"Socialism 
will not grow out of capitalism but away from it"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 140] In other words, tendencies <b>opposed</b> to capitalism 
rather than ones which are part and parcel of it.
<p>
Anarchism's recognition of the importance of these tendencies 
towards mutual aid within capitalism is a key to understanding 
what anarchists do in the here and now, as will be discussed
in 
<a href="secJcon.html">section J</a>. 
In addition, it also laid the foundation of 
understanding the nature of an anarchist society and what 
creates the framework of such a society in the here and now. 
Anarchists do not abstractly place a better society (anarchy) 
against the current, oppressive one. Instead, we analysis what 
tendencies exist within current society and encourage those 
which empower and liberate people. Based on these tendencies, 
anarchists propose a society which develops them to their 
logical conclusion. Therefore an anarchist society is created
not through the developments within capitalism, but in social 
activity against it. <a href="secIcon.html">Section I</a> 
indicates what such a society 
would be like and where its framework comes from.
<p> 
<a name="sech313"><h2>H.3.13 Why is state socialism just state capitalism?</h2>
<p>
For anarchists, the idea that socialism can be achieved
via state ownership is simply ridiculous. For reasons
which will become abundantly clear, anarchists argue 
that any such <i>"socialist"</i> system would simply be a
form of <i>"state capitalism."</i> Such a regime would not 
fundamentally change the position of the working class,
whose members would simply be wage slaves to the state
bureaucracy rather than to the capitalist class. 
<p>
However, before beginning our discussion of why anarchists 
think this we need to clarify our terminology. This is 
because the expression <i>"state capitalism"</i> has three distinct, 
if related, meanings in socialist (particularly Marxist) 
thought. Firstly, <i>"state capitalism"</i> was/is used to describe 
the current system of big business subject to extensive state 
control (particularly if, as in war, the capitalist state 
accrues <b>extensive</b> powers over industry). Secondly, it was 
used by Lenin to describe his immediate aims after the October 
Revolution, namely a regime in which the capitalists would
remain but would be subject to a system of state control
inherited by the new <i>"proletarian"</i> state from the old 
capitalist one (see 
<a href="append41.html#app10">section 10</a> of the appendix on
<a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>for details). The third 
use of the term is to signify a regime in which the state 
<b>replaces</b> the capitalist class <b>totally</b> via nationalisation 
of the means of production. In such a regime, the state would 
own, manage and accumulate capital rather than individual 
capitalists.
<p>
Anarchists are opposed to all three systems described by
the term <i>"state capitalism."</i> Here we concentrate on the 
third definition, arguing that state socialism would be
better described as <i>"state capitalism"</i> as state ownership
of the means of life does not get to the heart of capitalism,
namely wage labour. Rather it simply replaces private bosses
with the state and changes the form of property (from private
to state property) rather than getting rid of it.
<p>
The idea that socialism simply equals state ownership 
(nationalisation) is easy to find in the works 
of Marxism. The <b>Communist Manifesto</b>, for example,
states that the <i>"proletariat will use its political
supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the
bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production
into the hands of the State."</i> This meant the 
<i>"[c]entralisation of credit in the hands of the State,
by means of a national bank with State capital and an
exclusive monopoly,"</i> plus the <i>"[c]entralisation of the
means of communication and transport in the hands of
the State,"</i> <i>"[e]xtension of factories and instruments
of production owned by the State"</i> and the <i>"[e]stablishment
of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."</i> 
[<b>Marx-Engels Selected Works</b>, pp. 52-3]
<p>
Engels repeats this formula thirty-two years later in 
</b>Socialism: Utopian and Scientific</b> by asserting that 
capitalism itself <i>"forces on more and more the 
transformation of the vast means of production, already 
socialised, into state property. <b>The proletariat seizes 
political power and turns the means of production into 
state property.</b>"</i> Socialism is <b>not</b> equated with state 
ownership of productive forces by a capitalist state, 
<i>"but concealed within it are the technical conditions 
that form the elements of that solution"</i> to the social 
problem. It simply <i>"shows itself the way to accomplishing 
this revolution. <b>The proletariat seizes political power 
and turns the means of production into state property.</b>"</i> 
Thus state ownership <b>after</b> the proletariat seizes power 
is the basis of socialism, when by this <i>"first act"</i> of 
the revolution the state <i>"really constitutes itself as the 
representative of the whole of society."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels 
Reader</b>, p. 713, p. 712 and p. 713]
<p>
What is significant from these programmatic statements on 
the first steps of socialism is the total non-discussion 
of what is happening at the point of production, the 
non-discussion of the social relations in the workplace. 
Rather we are subjected to discussion of <i>"the contradiction 
between socialised production and capitalist appropriation"</i> 
and claims that while there is <i>"socialised organisation 
of production within the factory,"</i> this has become 
<i>"incompatible with the anarchy of production in society."</i>
The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that "socialism" 
will inherit, without change, the <i>"socialised"</i> workplace
of capitalism and that the fundamental change is that 
of ownership: <i>"The proletariat seized the public power, 
and by means of this transforms the socialised means of
production . . . into public property. By this act, the
proletariat frees the means of production from the
character of capital they have thus far borne."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 709 and p. 717]
<p>
That the Marxist movement came to see state ownership 
rather than workers' management of production as the 
key issue is hardly surprising. Thus we find leading
Social-Democrats arguing that socialism basically meant
the state, under Social-Democratic control of course, 
acquiring the means of production and nationalising them.
Hilferding presented what was Marxist orthodoxy at the
time when he argued that in <i>"a communist society"</i> 
production <i>"is consciously determined by the social 
central organ,"</i> which would decide <i>"what is to be 
produced and how much, where and by whom."</i> While this
information is determined by the market forces under
capitalism, in socialism it <i>"is given to the members 
of the socialist society by their authorities . . . we 
must derive the undisturbed progress of the socialist 
economy from the laws, ordinances and regulations of 
socialist authorities."</i> [quoted by Nikolai Bukharin, 
<b>Economy Theory of the Leisure Class</b>, p. 157]
As we discuss in the appendix on 
<a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>, the Bolsheviks inherited
this concept of "socialism" and implemented it.
<p>
This vision of society in which the lives of the 
population are controlled by <i>"authorities"</i> in a
<i>"social central organ"</i> which tell the workers what 
to do, while in line with the <b>Communist Manifesto</b>, 
seems less that appealing. It also shows why state
socialism is not socialism at all. Thus George Barrett:
<p><blockquote><i>
"If instead of the present capitalist class there were 
a set of officials appointed by the Government and set
in a position to control our factories, it would bring
about no revolutionary change. The officials would have
to be paid, and we may depend that, in their privileged
positions, they would expect good remuneration. The 
politicians would have to be paid, and we already know
their tastes. You would, in fact, have a non-productive
class dictating to the producers the conditions upon 
which they were allowed to use the means of production.
As this is exactly what is wrong with the present system
of society, we can see that State control would be no
remedy, while it would bring with it a host of new
troubles . . . under a governmental system of society, 
whether it is the capitalism of today or a more a
perfected Government control of the Socialist State,
the essential relationship between the governed and
the governing, the worker and the controller, will be
the same; and this relationship so long as it lasts can
be maintained only by the bloody brutality of the 
policeman's bludgeon and the soldier's rifle."</i> [<b>The 
Anarchist Revolution</b>, pp. 8-9]
</blockquote><p>
The key to seeing why state socialism is simply state
capitalism can be found in the lack of change in the
social relationships at the point of production. The
workers are still wage slaves, employed by the state 
and subject to its orders. As Lenin stressed in <b>State
and Revolution</b>, under Marxist Socialism <i>"[a]ll citizens 
are transformed into hired employees of the state . . . 
All citizens become employees and workers of a single 
country-wide state 'syndicate' . . . The whole of society 
will have become a single office and a single factory, 
with equality of labour and pay."</i> [Lenin, <b>Selected Works</b>, 
vol. 2, p. 312] Given that Engels had argued, against 
anarchism, that a factory required subordination, authority, 
lack of freedom and <i>"a veritable despotism independent of 
all social organisation,"</i> Lenin's idea of turning the world 
into one big factory takes on an extremely frightening 
nature. [<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 731] A reality which one 
anarchist described in 1923 as being the case in Lenin's 
Russia:
<p><blockquote><i>
"The nationalisation of industry, removing the workers 
from the hands of individual capitalists, delivered them 
to the yet more rapacious hands of a single, ever-present 
capitalist boss, the State. The relations between the 
workers and this new boss are the same as earlier 
relations between labour and capital, with the sole 
difference that the Communist boss, the State, not only 
exploits the workers, but also punishes them himself . . . 
Wage labour has remained what it was before, except that 
it has taken on the character of an obligation to the 
State . . . It is clear that in all this we are dealing 
with a simple substitution of State capitalism for private 
capitalism."</i> [Peter Arshinov, <b>History of the Makhnovist 
Movement</b>, p. 71]
</blockquote><p>
All of which makes Bakunin's comments seem justified (as
well as stunningly accurate):
<p><blockquote><i>
"<b>Labour financed by the State</b> -- such is the fundamental
principle of <b>authoritarian Communism,</b> of State Socialism.
The State, <b>having become the sole proprietor</b> . . . will
have become sole capitalist, banker, money-lender, organiser,
director of all national work, and the distributor of its
profits."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 293]
</blockquote><p>
Such a system, based on those countries <i>"where modern 
capitalist development has reached its highest point of
development"</i> would see <i>"the gradual or violent expropriation
of the present landlords and capitalists, or of the
appropriation of all land and capital by the State. In
order to be able to carry out its great economic and 
social mission, this State will have to be very far-reaching,
very powerful and highly centralised. It will administer
and supervise agriculture by means of its appointed 
mangers, who will command armies of rural workers 
organised and disciplined for that purpose. At the 
same time, it will set up a single bank on the ruins
of all existing banks."</i> Such a system, Bakunin correctly
predicted, would be <i>"a barracks regime for the proletariat,
in which a standardised mass of men and women workers would
wake, sleep, work and live by rote; a regime of privilege
for the able and the clever."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings</b>, p. 258 and p. 259] 
<p>
Proudhon, likewise was well aware that state ownership did 
not mean the end of private property, rather it meant a
change in who ordered the working class about. <i>"We do
not want,"</i> he stated, <i>"to see the State confiscate the
mines, canals and railways; that would be to add to 
monarchy, and more wage slavery. We want the mines, 
canals, railways handed over to democratically organised
workers' associations"</i> which would be the start of a
<i>"vast federation of companies and societies woven into
the common cloth of the democratic social Republic."</i>
He contrasted workers' associations run by and for 
their members to those <i>"subsidised, commanded and 
directed by the State,"</i> which would crush <i>"all liberty
and all wealth, precisely as the great limited companies
are doing."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 62 and 
p. 105]
<p>
Simply put, if workers did not directly manage their own
work then it matters little who formally owns the workplaces
in which they toil. As Maurice Brinton argues, libertarian
socialists <i>"hold that the 'relations of production' -- the 
relations which individuals or groups enter into with one 
another in the process of producing wealth -- are the 
essential foundations of any society. A certain pattern 
of relations of production is the common denominator of 
all class societies. This pattern is one in which the 
producer does not dominate the means of production but 
on the contrary both is 'separated from them' and from 
the products of his [or her] own labour. In all class 
societies the producer is in a position of subordination 
to those who manage the productive process. Workers' 
management of production -- implying as it does the total 
domination of the producer over the productive process - 
is not for us a marginal matter. It is the core of our 
politics. It is the only means whereby authoritarian 
(order-giving, order-taking) relations in production can 
be transcended and a free, communist or anarchist, society 
introduced."</i> He goes on to note that <i>"the means of 
production may change hands (passing for instance from 
private hands into those of a bureaucracy, collectively 
owning them) with out this revolutionising the relations 
of production. Under such circumstances -- and whatever 
the formal status of property -- the society is still a 
class society for production is still managed by an agency 
other than the producers themselves. Property relations, 
in other words, do not necessarily reflect the relations 
of production. They may serve to mask them -- and in fact 
they often have."</i> [<b>The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control</b>,
pp. vii-vii]
<p>
As such, for anarchists (and libertarian Marxists) the 
idea that state ownership of the means of life (the land, 
workplaces, factories, etc.) is the basis of socialism is 
simply wrong. Therefore, <i>"Anarchism cannot look upon the 
coming revolution as a mere substitution . . . of the 
State as the universal capitalist for the present 
capitalists."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Evolution and Environment</b>, 
p. 106] Given that the <i>"State organisation having always 
been . . . the instrument for establishing monopolies 
in favour of the ruling minorities, [it] cannot be made 
to work for the destruction of these monopolies. The 
anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to 
the State all the main sources of economic life -- the 
land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and 
so on -- as also the management of all the main branches 
of industry . . . would mean to create a new instrument 
of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the 
powers of bureaucracy and capitalism."</i> [<b>Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>, p. 286] Needless to say, a
society which was not democratic in the workplace would
not remain democratic politically either. Either 
democracy would become as formal as it is within any 
capitalist republic or it would be replaced by dictatorship. 
So, without a firm base in the direct management of 
production, any "socialist" society would see working 
class social power (<i>"political power"</i>) and liberty wither 
and die, just like a flower ripped out of the soil.
<p>
Unsurprisingly, given all this, we discover throughout 
history the co-existence of private and state property. 
Indeed, the nationalisation of key services and 
industries has been implemented under all kinds of 
capitalist governments and within all kinds of 
capitalist states (which proves the non-socialist 
nature of state ownership). Moreover, anarchists can 
point to specific events where the capitalist class 
has used nationalisation to undermine revolutionary 
gains by the working class. The best example by far 
is in the Spanish Revolution, when the Catalan 
government used nationalisation against the wave of 
spontaneous, anarchist inspired, collectivisation which 
had placed most of industry into the hand direct hands 
of the workers (see 
<a href="secI8.html">section I.8</a>). The government, under 
the guise of legalising the gains of the workers, placed 
them under state ownership to stop their development, 
ensure hierarchical control and so class society. 
<p>
A similar process occurred during the Russian Revolution 
under the Bolsheviks. Significantly, <i>"many managers, at 
least those who remained, appear to have preferred 
nationalisation (state control) to workers' control and 
co-operated with Bolshevik commissars to introduce it. 
Their motives are not too difficult to understand . . . 
The issue of who runs the plants -- who makes decisions -- 
is, and probably always will be, the crucial question for 
managers in any industrial relations system."</i> [Jay B. 
Sorenson, <b>The Life and Death of Soviet Trade Unionism</b>, 
pp. 67-8] As we discuss in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech314">next section</a>, the managers 
and capitalists were not the only ones who disliked <i>"workers' 
control,"</i> the Bolsheviks did so as well, who ensured that it 
was marginalised within a centralised system of state control 
based on nationalisation.
<p>
As such, anarchists think that a utterly false dichotomy has 
been built up in discussions of socialism, one which has served 
the interests of both capitalists and state bureaucrats. This 
dichotomy is simply that the economic choices available to 
humanity are "private" ownership of productive means 
(capitalism), or state ownership of productive means (usually 
defined as "socialism"). In this manner, capitalist nations 
used the Soviet Union, and continue to use autocracies like 
North Korea, China, and Cuba as examples of the evils of 
"public" ownership of productive assets.
<p>
Anarchists see little distinction between "private" ownership of 
the means of life and "state" ownership. This is because the 
state is a highly centralised structure specifically designed to
exclude mass participation and so, therefore, necessarily composed 
of a ruling administrative body. As such, the "public" cannot 
actually "own" the property the state claims to hold in its name. 
The ownership and thus control of the productive means is then 
in the hands of a ruling elite, the state administration (i.e. 
bureaucracy). Thus, the means of production and land of a state 
"socialist" regime are <b>not</b> publicly owned -- rather, they are 
owned by a bureaucratic elite, <b>in the name of the people</b>, a 
subtle but important distinction. 
<p>
In this fashion, decisions about the allocation and use of the 
productive assets is not made by the people themselves, but by 
the administration, by economic planners. Similarly, in "private" 
capitalist economies, economic decisions are made by a coterie 
of managers. In both cases the managers make decisions which
reflect their own interests and the interests of the owners 
(be it shareholders or the state bureaucracy) and <b>not</b> the 
workers involved or society as a whole. In both cases, economic 
decision-making is top-down in nature, made by an elite of 
administrators -- bureaucrats in the state socialist economy, 
capitalists or managers in the "private" capitalist economy. 
The much-lauded distinction of capitalism is that unlike the 
monolithic, centralised state socialist bureaucracy it has 
a <b>choice</b> of bosses (and choosing a master is not freedom).
And given the similarities in the relations of production 
between capitalism and state "socialism," the obvious 
inequalities in wealth in so-called "socialist" states 
are easily explained. The relations of production and the
relations of distribution are inter-linked and so inequality
in terms of power in production means inequality in control
of the social product, which will be reflected in inequality
in terms of wealth.
<p>
In other words, private property exists if some individuals 
(or groups) control/own things which are used by other people.
This means, unsurprising, that state ownership is just a form 
of property rather than the negation of it. If you have a 
highly centralised structure (as the state is) which plans 
and decides about all things within production, then this 
central administrative would be the real owner because it 
has the exclusive right to decide how things are used, <b>not</b> 
those using them. The existence of this central administrative 
strata excludes the abolition of property, replacing socialism
or communism with state owned "property," i.e. <b>state</b> 
capitalism. As such, state ownership does <b>not</b> end wage 
labour and, therefore, social inequalities in terms of wealth
and access to resources. Workers are still order-takers under 
state ownership (whose bureaucrats control the product of 
their labour and determine who gets what). The only difference 
between workers under private property and state property is 
the person telling them what to do. Simply put, the capitalist 
or company appointed manager is replaced by a state appointed 
one. 
<p>
As anarcho-syndicalist Tom Brown stresses, when <i>"the many 
control the means whereby they live, they will do so by 
abolishing private ownership and establishing common 
ownership of the means of production, with workers' control 
of industry."</i> However, this is <i>"not to be confused with 
nationalisation and state control"</i> as <i>"ownership is, in 
theory, said to be vested in the people"</i> but, in fact 
<i>"control is in the hands of a small class of bureaucrats."</i> 
Then <i>"common ownership does not exist, but the labour market 
and wage labour go on, the worker remaining a wage slave to 
State capitalism."</i> Simply put, common ownership <i>"demands 
common control. This is possible only in a condition of 
industrial democracy by workers' control."</i> [<b>Syndicalism</b>, 
p. 94] In summary:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Nationalisation is not Socialisation, but State Capitalism 
. . . Socialisation . . . is not State ownership, but the 
common, social ownership of the means of production, and
social ownership implies control by the producers, not by
new bosses. It implies Workers' Control of Industry --
and that is Syndicalism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 111]
</blockquote><p>
However, many Marxists (in particular Leninists) state they 
are in favour of both state ownership <b>and</b> <i>"workers' control."</i> 
As we discuss in more depth in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech314">next section</a>, while they mean 
the same thing as anarchists do by the first term, they have 
a radically different meaning for the second (it is for this 
reason modern-day anarchists generally use the term <i>"workers' 
self-management"</i>). To anarchist ears, the combination of
nationalisation (state ownership) and <i>"workers' control"</i> 
(and even more so, self-management) simply expresses 
political confusion, a mishmash of contradictory ideas which
simply hides the reality that state ownership, by its very 
nature, precludes workers' control. As such, anarchists reject
such contradictory rhetoric in favour of <i>"socialisation"</i> and
<i>"workers' self-management of production."</i> History shows that
nationalisation will always undermine workers' control at the
point of production and such rhetoric always paves the way for 
state capitalism.
<p>
Therefore, anarchists are against both nationalisation
<b>and</b> privatisation, recognising both as forms of 
capitalism, of wage slavery. We believe in genuine public 
ownership of productive assets, rather than corporate/private 
or state/bureaucratic control. Only in this manner can the 
public address their own economic needs. Thus, we see a 
third way that is distinct from the popular "either/or" 
options forwarded by capitalists and state socialists, a 
way that is entirely more democratic. This is workers' 
self-management of production, based on social ownership 
of the means of life by federations of self-managed 
syndicates and communes. 
<p>
For further discussion, see Kropotkin's discussion of
<i>"The collectivist Wages System"</i> in <b>The Conquest of
Bread</b> and selections from the British Anarchist Journal 
<b>Freedom</b> about the wide-scale nationalisation which 
took place after the end of the Second World War entitled 
<b>Neither Nationalisation Nor Privatisation: An Anarchist 
Approach</b>.
<p>
<a name="sech314"><h2>H.3.14 Don't Marxists believe in workers' control?</h2>
<p>
As we discussed in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech313">last section</a>, anarchists consider
the usual association of state ownership with socialism to
be false. We argue that it is just another form of the wages
system, of capitalism, albeit with the state replacing the
capitalist. As such, state ownership, for anarchists, is
simply state capitalism. Instead we urge socialisation 
based on workers' self-management of production. Libertarian
Marxists concur.
<p>
Some mainstream Marxists, however, say they seek to combine 
state ownership with <i>"workers' control."</i> This can be seen 
from Trotsky, for example, who argued in 1938 for <i>"workers' 
control . . . the penetration of the workers' eye into all 
open and concealed springs of capitalist economy . . . 
workers' control becomes a school for planned economy. On 
the basis of the experience of control, the proletariat will 
prepare itself for direct management of nationalised industry 
when the hour for that eventuality strikes."</i> Modern day 
Leninists are often heard voicing support for what anarchists 
consider an oxymoron, namely <i>"nationalisation under worker' 
control."</i> This, it will be argued, proves that nationalisation 
(state control) is not <i>"state capitalism"</i> as we argued in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech313">last section</a>, 
rather <i>"control is the first step along the road 
to the socialist guidance of economy."</i> [<b>The Death Agony 
of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International</b>, 
p. 73 and p. 74]
<p>
Anarchists are not convinced. This is because of two reasons.
Firstly, because by <i>"workers' control"</i> anarchists and Leninists
mean two radically different things. Secondly, when in <b>power</b> 
Trotsky advocated radically different ideas. Based on these 
reasons, anarchists view Leninist calls for <i>"workers' control"</i> 
simply as a means of gaining popular support, calls which will 
be ignored once the real aim, party power, has been achieved: 
it is an example of Trotsky's comment that <i>"[s]logans as well 
as organisational forms should be subordinated to the indices 
of the movement."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 72] In other words, rather than 
express a commitment to the ideas of worker's control of 
production, mainstream Marxist use of the term <i>"workers' control"</i> 
is simply an opportunistic technique aiming at securing support 
for the party's seizure of power and once this is achieved it 
will be cast aside in favour of the first part of the demands, 
namely state ownership and so control. In making this claim 
anarchists feel they have more than enough evidence, evidence 
which many members of Leninist parties simply know nothing about.
<p>
We will look first at the question of terminology. Anarchists 
traditionally used the term <i>"workers' control"</i> to mean workers' 
full and direct control over their workplaces, and their work. 
However, after the Russian Revolution a certain ambiguity arose 
in using that term. This is because specific demands which were 
raised during that revolution were translated into English as 
<i>"workers' control"</i> when, in fact, the Russian meaning of the 
word (<b>kontrolia</b>) was far closer to <i>"supervision"</i> or <i>"steering."</i> 
Thus the term <i>"workers' control"</i> is used to describe two 
radically different concepts.
<p>
This can be seen from Trotsky when he argued that the workers 
should <i>"demand resumption, as public utilities, of work in 
private businesses closed as a result of the crisis. Workers' 
control in such case would be replaced by direct workers' 
management."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 73] Why workers' employed in 
open capitalist firms were not considered suitable for 
<i>"direct workers' management"</i> is not explained, but the fact
remains Trotsky clearly differentiated between management and
control. For him, <i>"workers' control"</i> meant <i>"workers supervision"</i>
over the capitalist who retained power. In other words, a 
system of <i>"dual power"</i> at the point of production (and, like
all forms of dual power, essentially and inevitably unstable).
<p>
This vision of <i>"workers' control"</i> as simply supervision of
the capitalist managers can be found in Lenin. Rather than 
seeing <i>"workers' control"</i> as workers managing production 
directly, he always saw it in terms of workers' <i>"controlling"</i> 
those who did. It simply meant <i>"the country-wide, all-embracing, 
omnipresent, most precise and most conscientious <b>accounting</b> 
of the production and distribution of goods."</i> He clarified
what he meant, arguing for <i>"country-wide, all-embracing 
workers' control over the capitalists"</i> who would still 
manage production. Significantly, he considered that <i>"as
much as nine-tenths of the <b>socialist</b> apparatus"</i> required
for this <i>"country-wide <b>book-keeping,</b> country-wide <b>accounting</b>
of the production and distribution of goods"</i> would be achieved
by nationalising the <i>"big banks,"</i> which <i>"<b>are</b> the 'state 
apparatus' which we <b>need</b> to bring about socialism"</i> (indeed,
this was considered <i>"something in the nature of the <b>skeleton</b>
of socialist society"</i>). Over time, this system would move
towards full socialism. [<b>Selected Works</b>, vol. 2, pp. 364-5, 
p. 366 and p. 365]
<p>
Thus, what Leninists mean by <i>"workers' control"</i> is radically
different than what anarchists traditionally meant by that term
(indeed, it was radically different from the workers' definition,
as can be seen from a resolution of the Bolshevik dominated
First Trade Union Congress which complained that <i>"the workers 
misunderstand and falsely interpret workers' control."</i> [quoted 
by M. Brinton, <b>The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control</b>, p. 32]).
It is for this reason that from the 1960s English speaking 

anarchists and other libertarian socialists have been explicit 
and have used the term <i>"workers' self-management"</i> rather than 
<i>"workers' control"</i> to describe their aims. Mainstream Marxists,
however have continued to use the latter slogan, undoubtedly,
as we note in <a href="secH3.html#sech35">section H.3.5</a>, 
to gain members from the confusion 
in meanings.
<p>
Secondly, there is the example of the Russian Revolution itself. 
Indeed, Trotsky is simply repeating the slogans used by the 
Bolsheviks in 1917. As historian S.A. Smith correctly summarises, 
the <i>"factory committees launched the slogan of workers' control 
of production quite independently of the Bolshevik party. It 
was not until May that the party began to take it up."</i> However, 
Lenin used <i>"the term ['workers' control'] in a very different 
sense from that of the factory committees."</i> In fact Lenin's 
<i>"proposals . . . [were] thoroughly statist and centralist in 
character, whereas the practice of the factory committees was 
essentially local and autonomous."</i> [<b>Red Petrograd</b>, p. 154] 
<p>
This is not all, this <i>"workers' control"</i> was always placed in 
a statist context and it would be exercised not by workers' 
organisations but rather by state capitalist institutions. In 
May 1917, Lenin was arguing for the <i>"establishment of state 
control over all banks, and their amalgamation into a single 
central bank; also control over the insurance agencies and big 
capitalist syndicates."</i> He reiterated this framework later that 
year, arguing that <i>"the new means of control have been created 
not by us, but by capitalism in its military-imperialist stage"</i> 
and so <i>"the proletariat takes its weapons from capitalism and 
does not 'invent' or 'create them out of nothing.'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 112, p. 367 and p. 599] The factory committees were added
to this <i>"state capitalist"</i> system but they played only a very 
minor role in it. Indeed, this system of state control was 
designed to limit the power of the factory committees:
<p><blockquote><i>
"One of the first decrees issues by the Bolshevik Government
was the Decree on Workers' Control of 27 November 1917. By
this decree workers' control was institutionalised . . . 
Workers' control implied the persistence of private ownership
of the means of production, though with a 'diminished' right
of disposal. The organs of workers' control, the factory 
committees, were not supposed to evolve into workers'
management organs after the nationalisation of the factories.
The hierarchical structure of factory work was not questioned
by Lenin . . . To the Bolshevik leadership the transfer of
power to the working class meant power to its leadership, 
i.e. to the party. Central control was the main goal of the
Bolshevik leadership. The hasty creation of the VSNKh (the
Supreme Council of the National Economy) on 1 December 1917,
with precise tasks in the economic field, was a significant 
indication of fact that decentralised management was not among
the projects of the party, and that the Bolsheviks intended to
counterpose central direction of the economy to the possible
evolution of workers' control toward self-management."</i> 
[Silvana Malle, <b>The Economic Organisation of War Communism,
1918-1921</b>, p. 47]
</blockquote><p>
Once in power, the Bolsheviks soon turned away from even 
this limited vision of workers' control and in favour of 
<i>"one-man management."</i> Lenin raised this idea in late April
1918 and it involved granting state appointed <i>"individual 
executives dictatorial powers (or 'unlimited' powers)."</i> 
Large-scale industry required <i>"thousands subordinating 
their will to the will of one,"</i> and so the revolution 
<i>"demands"</i> that <i>"the people unquestioningly obey the single 
will of the leaders of labour."</i> Lenin's <i>"superior forms of 
labour discipline"</i> were simply hyper-developed capitalist 
forms. The role of workers in production was the same, but 
with a novel twist, namely <i>"unquestioning obedience to the 
orders of individual representatives of the Soviet government 
during the work."</i> This support for wage slavery was combined 
with support for capitalist management techniques. <i>"We must 
raise the question of piece-work and apply and test it in 
practice,"</i> argued Lenin, <i>"we must raise the question of 
applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the 
Taylor system; we must make wages correspond to the total 
amount of goods turned out."</i> [Lenin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 610, 
p. 611, p. 612 and pp. 602-3]
<p>
This vision had already been applied in practice, with the 
<i>"first decree on the management of nationalised enterprises in
March 1918"</i> which had <i>"established two directors at the head of 
each enterprise . . . Both directors were appointed by the 
central administrators."</i> An <i>"economic and administrative 
council"</i> was also created in the workplace, but this <i>"did not
reflect a syndicalist concept of management."</i> Rather it 
included represents of the employees, employers, engineers,
trade unions, the local soviets, co-operatives, the local
economic councils and peasants. This composition <i>"weakened
the impact of the factory workers on decision-making . . . 
The workers' control organs [the factory committees] remained
in a subordinate position with respect to the council."</i> Once
the Civil War broke out in May 1918, this process was 
accelerated. By 1920, most workplaces were under one-man 
management and the Communist Party at its Ninth Congress had 
<i>"promoted  one-man management as the most suitable form of 
management."</i> [Silvana Malle, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 111, p. 112, 
p. 141 and p. 128] In other words, the manner in which 
Lenin organised industry had handed it over entirely into
the hands of the bureaucracy.
<p>
Trotsky, as to be expected, did not disagree with all this.
In fact, quite the reverse. He wholeheartedly defended the
imposing of <i>"one-man management"</i> in his justly infamous book 
<b>Terrorism and Communism</b>. As he put it, <i>"our Party Congress
. . . expressed itself in favour of the principle of one-man 
management in the administration of industry . . . It would 
be the greatest possible mistake, however, to consider this 
decision as a blow to the independence of the working class. 
The independence of the workers is determined and measured 
not by whether three workers or one are placed at the head 
of a factory."</i> As such, it <i>"would consequently be a most 
crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy of 
the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the 
head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is 
expressed in the abolition of private property in the means 
of production, in the supremacy over the whole Soviet mechanism 
of the collective will of the workers, and not at all in the 
form in which individual economic enterprises are administered."</i>
[<b>Terrorism and Communism</b>, p. 162] The term <i>"collective will 
of the workers"</i> is simply a euphemism for the Party which
Trotsky had admitted had <i>"substituted"</i> its dictatorship for
that of the Soviets (indeed, <i>"there is nothing accidental"</i> 
in this <i>"'substitution' of the power of the party for the 
power of the working class"</i> and <i>"in reality there is no 
substitution at all."</i> The <i>"dictatorship of the Soviets became 
possible only by means of the dictatorship of the party."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 109]). The unions <i>"should discipline the 
workers and teach them to place the interests of production
above their own needs and demands."</i> He even argued that <i>"the 
only solution to economic difficulties from the point of 
view of both principle and of practice is to treat the 
population of the whole country as the reservoir of the 
necessary labour power . . . and to introduce strict order 
into the work of its registration, mobilisation and 
utilisation."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 143 and p. 135]
<p>
Trotsky did not consider this a result of the Civil War. 
Again, the opposite was the case: <i>"I consider if the civil 
war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was 
strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, 
we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man 
management in the sphere of economic administration much 
sooner and much less painfully."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 162-3]
<p>
Significantly, discussing developments in Russia since 
the N.E.P, Trotsky argued that it was <i>"necessary for each
state-owned factory, with its technical director and
with its commercial director, to be subjected not only
to control from the top -- by the state organs -- but 
also from below, by the market which will remain the 
regulator of the state economy for a long time to come."</i>
Workers' control, as can be seen, was not even mentioned, 
nor considered as an essential aspect of control <i>"from 
below."</i> As Trotsky also stated that <i>"[u]nder socialism 
economic life will be directed in a centralised manner,"</i> 
our discussion of the state capitalist nature of mainstream 
Marxism we presented in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech313">last section</a> is confirmed. 
[<b>The First Five Years of the Communist International</b>,
vol. 2, p. 237 and p. 229]
<p>
The contrast between what Trotsky did when he was in 
power and what he argued for after he had been expelled 
is obvious. Indeed, the arguments of 1938 and 1920 are 
in direct contradiction to each other. Needless to say, 
Leninists and Trotskyists today are fonder of quoting 
Trotsky and Lenin when they did not have state power 
rather than when they did. Rather than compare what they
said to what they did, they simply repeat ambiguous slogans
which meant radically different things to Lenin and Trotsky
than to the workers' who thrust them into power. For obvious
reasons, we feel. Given the opportunity for latter day 
Leninists to exercise power, we wonder if a similar process 
would occur again? Who would be willing to take that chance?
<p>
As such, the claim that Marxists stand for <i>"workers' control"</i>
can be refuted on two counts. Firstly, by that term they simply
mean workers' supervision of those who do have real power in
production (either the capitalists or state appointed managers).
It does <b>not</b> mean workers' self-management of production.
Secondly, when they had the chance they did not implement it.
In fact, they imposed capitalist style hierarchical management
and did not consider this as anything to be worried about. And
as this policy was advocated <b>before</b> the start of the Civil
War, it cannot be said to have been forced upon them by necessity.
As such, any claim that mainstream Marxism considers <i>"workers' 
control"</i> as an essential feature of its politics is simply 
nonsense. 
<p>
For a comprehensive discussion of <i>"workers' control"</i> during the
Russian Revolution Maurice Brinton's <b>The Bolsheviks and Workers'
Control</b> cannot be bettered.
<p>
The roots of this confusion can be found in Marx and Engels.
In the struggle between authentic socialism (i.e. workers'
self-management) and state capitalism (i.e. state ownership)
there <b>are</b> elements of the correct solution to be found in 
their ideas. This is their support for co-operatives. For 
example, Marx praised the efforts made within the Paris 
Commune to create co-operatives, so <i>"transforming the means 
of production, land and capital . . . into mere instruments 
of free and associated labour."</i> He argued that <i>"[i]f 
co-operative production is not to remain a shame and a snare; 
if it is to supersede the Capitalist system; if united 
co-operative societies are to regulate national production 
upon a common plan, thus taking it under their own control,
and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical
convulsions which are the fatality of Capitalist production
-- what else . . . would it be but Communism, 'possible'
Communism?"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 290-1] Engels, continuing this 
theme, argued for <i>"the transfer -- initially on lease -- 
of large estates to autonomous co-operatives under state 
management and effected in such a way that the State retains 
ownership of the land."</i> He stated that neither he nor Marx 
<i>"ever doubted that, in the course of transition to a wholly 
communist economy, widespread use would have to be made of 
co-operative management as an intermediate stage. Only it 
will mean so organising things that society, i.e. initially 
the State, retains ownership of the means of production and 
thus prevents the particular interests of the co-operatives 
from taking precedence over those of society as a whole."</i> 
[<b>Marx-Engels Collected Works</b>, vol. 47, p. 389] 
<p>
However, Engels comments simply bring home the impossibilities 
of trying to reconcile state ownership and workers' 
self-management. While the advocacy of co-operatives is a 
positive step forward from the statist arguments of the 
</b>Communist Manifesto</b>, Engels squeezes these libertarian forms 
of organising production into typically statist structures. 
How <i>"autonomous co-operatives"</i> can co-exist with (and under!) 
<i>"state management"</i> and <i>"ownership"</i> is not explained, plus 
the fatal confusion of socialisation with nationalisation.
<p>
In addition, the differences between the comments of Marx and 
Engels are obvious. While Marx talks of <i>"united co-operative
societies,"</i> Engels talks of <i>"the State."</i> The former implies
a free federation of co-operatives, the latter a centralised
structure which the co-operatives are squeezed into and 
under. The former is socialism, the latter is state capitalist.
From Engels argument, it is obvious that the stress is on 
state ownership and management rather than self-management.
This confusion became a source of tragedy during the 
Russian Revolution when the workers, like their comrades
during the Commune, started to form a federation of
factory committees while the Bolsheviks squeezed these
bodies into a system of state control which was designed
to marginalise them (see the appendix on 
<a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> for full details).
<p>
Moreover, the aims of the Paris workers were at odds with
the vision of the <b>Communist Manifesto</b> and in line with 
anarchism. Proudhon, for example, had argued in 1848
against state ownership and for <i>"democratically organised
workers' associations"</i> which would be <i>"models for agriculture,
industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast
federation of companies and societies"</i> which would make
up <i>"the democratic social Republic."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>,
vol. 1, p. 62] In his <b>Principle of Federation</b> he called
this idea an <i>"agro-industrial federation."</i> Thus the idea
of co-operative production is a clear expression of what
Proudhon explicitly called <i>"industrial democracy,"</i> a
<i>"reorganisation of industry, under the jurisdiction of
all those who compose it."</i> [quoted by K. Steven Vincent,
</b>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism</b>, p. 225] Bakunin and later anarchists simply 
developed these ideas to their logical conclusion (see 
<a href="secI3.html">section I.3</a> for example).
<p>
Marx, to his credit, supported these libertarian visions 
when applied in practice by the Paris workers during the
Commune and promptly revised his ideas. This fact has been 
obscured somewhat by Engels historical revisionism in this 
matter. He argued, for example, that the <i>"economic measures"</i> 
of the Commune were driven not by <i>"principles"</i> but by <i>"simple,
practical needs."</i> This meant that <i>"the confiscation of 
shut-down factories and workshops and handing them over
to workers' associations"</i> were <i>"not at all in accordance
with the spirit of Proudhonism but certainly in accordance
with the spirit of German scientific socialism."</i> [Marx,
Engels, Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 92]
This distortion of Proudhon's ideas is also present in
Engels' 1891 introduction to Marx's <i>"The Civil War in
France."</i> He painted a picture of Proudhon being opposed
to association (except for large-scale industry). He
stresses that <i>"to combine all these associations in one
great union"</i> was <i>"the direct opposite of the Proudhon
doctrine"</i> and so <i>"the Commune was the grave of the 
Proudhon doctrine."</i> [<b>Marx-Engels Selected Works</b>, p. 256]
<p>
However, as noted, this is nonsense. The forming of workers'
associations was a key aspect of Proudhon's ideas and so
the Communards were obviously acting in his spirit. Given
that the <b>Communist Manifesto</b> stressed state ownership
and failed to mention co-operatives at all, the claim that
the Commune acted in its spirit seems a tad optimistic.
Particularly since Marx had commented in 1866 that in France 
the workers (<i>"particularly those of Paris"</i>!) <i>"are strongly
attached, without knowing it [!], to the old rubbish"</i> and
that the <i>"Parisian gentlemen had their heads full of the 
emptiest Proudhonist phrases."</i> [Marx, Engels and Lenin, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 46 and p. 45] 
<p>
What did this <i>"old rubbish"</i> consist of? Well, in 1869 the 
delegate of the Parisian Construction Workers' Trade Union 
argued that <i>"[a]ssociation of the different corporations 
[labour unions/associations] on the basis of town or country 
. . . leads to the commune of the future . . . Government is 
replaced by the assembled councils of the trade bodies, and 
by a committee of their respective delegates."</i> In addition, 
<i>"a local grouping which allows the workers in the same area 
to liase on a day to day basis"</i> and <i>"a linking up of the 
various localities, fields, regions, etc."</i> (i.e. international 
trade or industrial union federations) would ensure that 
<i>"labour organises for present and future by doing away with 
wage slavery."</i> This <i>"mode of organisation leads to the labour 
representation of the future."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, 
p. 184]
<p>
To state the obvious, this had clear links with both Proudhon's
ideas <b>and</b> what the Commune did in practice. Rather than being
the <i>"grave"</i> of Proudhon's ideas on workers' associations, the
Commune saw their birth, i.e. their application. Rather than 
the Parisian workers becoming Marxists <i>"without knowing it,"</i> 
Marx had become a follower of Proudhon! Thus the idea of 
socialism being based on a federation of workers' associations 
was not buried with the Paris Commune. It was integrated into 
all forms of social anarchism (including communist-anarchism 
and anarcho-syndicalism) and recreated every time there is a 
social revolution.
<p>
In ending when must note that anarchists are well aware that
individual workplaces could pursue aims at odds with the 
rest of society (to use Engels expression, their <i>"particular 
interests"</i>). This is often termed <i>"localism."</i> Anarchists, 
however, argue that the mainstream Marxist solution is worse 
than the problem. By placing self-managed workplaces under 
state control (or ownership) they become subject to even 
worse <i>"particular interests,"</i> namely those of the state 
bureaucracy who will use their power to further their own 
interests. In contrast, anarchists advocate federations of 
self-managed workplaces to solve this problem (see 
<a href="secI3.html">section I.3</a> for more).
<p>
In summary, the problem of <i>"localism"</i> and any other problems 
faced by a social revolution will be solved in the interests 
of the working class only if working class people solve them 
themselves. For this to happen it requires working class 
people to manage their own affairs directly and that implies 
self-managed organising from the bottom up (i.e. anarchism) 
rather than delegating power to a minority at the top, to a 
"revolutionary" party or state. This applies economically, 
socially and politically. As Bakunin argued, the <i>"revolution 
should not only be made for the people's sake; it should also 
be made by the people."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 141]
<p>
<a name="sech315"><h2>H.3.15 Can objective factors explain the failure of the Russian Revolution?</h2>
<p>
The greatest myth of Marxism must surely be the idea that the Russian
Revolution failed solely due to the impact objective factors. For Leninist,
the failure of the revolution was the product of such things as civil war, 
foreign intervention, economic collapse and the isolation and backwardness 
of Russia and <b>not</b> Bolshevik ideology. Anarchists are not impressed by 
this argument.
<p>
Leninist John Rees recounts the standard argument, namely that the 
objective conditions in Russia meant that the <i>"subjective factor"</i> 
of Bolshevik ideology <i>"was reduced to a choice between capitulation 
to the Whites or defending the revolution with whatever means were 
at hands. Within these limits Bolshevik policy was decisive. But it 
could not wish away the limits and start with a clean sheet."</i> From 
this perspective, the key factor was the <i>"vice-like pressure of the 
civil war"</i> which <i>"transformed the state"</i> as well as the <i>"Bolshevik 
Party itself."</i> For the Bolsheviks had <i>"survived three years of civil 
war and wars of intervention, but only at the cost of reducing the 
working class to an atomised, individualised mass, a fraction of 
its former size, and unable to exercise the collective power it 
had done in 1917."</i> Industry was <i>"reduced . . . to rubble"</i> and the 
<i>"bureaucracy of the workers' state was left suspended in mid-air, 
its class based eroded and demoralised."</i> [<i>"In Defence 
of October,"</i> pp. 3-82, <b>International Socialism</b>, no. 52, p. 30, 
p. 70, p. 66 and p. 65] Due to these factors, argue Leninists, the 
Bolsheviks became dictators <b>over</b> the working class and <b>not</b> due 
to their political ideas. 
<p>
Anarchists are not convinced by this analysis, arguing that is 
factually and logically flawed. Needless to say, it would be near 
impossible to discuss these issues in any real depth in just one 
section. As such, we need to summarise the major facts, issues and 
points. For those interested in a fuller discussion as well as the 
necessary documentation, we would recommend reading the appendix 
on <a href="append4.html">"The Russian Revolution."</a> With that caveat, we now turn to 
summarising the problems with the Leninist approach. These fall 
into four main categories.
<p>
The first problem is factual. Bolshevik authoritarianism started 
<b>before</b> the start of the civil war and major economic collapse. 
Whether it is soviet democracy, workers' economic self-management, 
democracy in the armed forces or working class power and freedom 
generally, the fact is the Bolsheviks had systematically attacked 
and undermined it from the start. They also repressed working class 
protests and strikes along with opposition groups and parties. As 
such, it is difficult to blame something which had not started yet 
for causing Bolshevik policies.
<p>
Although the Bolsheviks had seized power under the slogan <i>"All Power to
the Soviets,"</i> as we noted in <a href="secH3.html#sech311">section H.3.11</a>
 the facts are the Bolsheviks
aimed for party power and only supported soviets when they controlled 
them. To maintain party power, they had to undermine the soviets and 
they did. This onslaught on the soviets started quickly, a mere four 
days after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks when their Council of 
People's Commissars unilaterally took for itself legislative power simply 
by issuing a decree to this effect. <i>"This was, effectively, a Bolshevik 
coup d'etat that made clear the government's (and party's) pre-eminence 
over the soviets and their executive organ."</i> [Neil Harding, <b>Leninism</b>, 
p. 253] The highest organ of soviet power, the Central Executive Committee 
(VTsIK) was turned into little more than a rubber stamp, with its Bolshevik 
dominated presidium using its power to control the body and maintain 
Bolshevik power by, for example, awarding representations to groups and 
factions which supported the Bolsheviks and circumventing general meetings. 
<p>
At the grassroots, a similar process was at work with power moving
increasingly to the Bolshevik dominated soviet executives who used 
it to maintain a Bolshevik majority by any means possible. One such 
technique used to postpone new soviet elections, another was to 
gerrymander the soviets to ensure their majority. For example, when
workplace soviet elections were finally held in Petrograd, their 
results were irrelevant because more than half of the projected 
700-plus deputies in the new soviet were selected by Bolshevik 
dominated organisations. The Bolsheviks had secured themselves a 
solid majority even before factory voting began. When postponing and
gerrymandering failed, the Bolsheviks turned to state repression
to remain in power. For all the provincial soviet elections in the 
spring and summer of 1918 for which data is available, Bolshevik 
armed force not only overthrew the election results, it also 
suppressed the working class protest against such actions. 
[Vladimir Brovkin, <i>"The Mensheviks' Political Comeback: The 
Elections to the Provincial City Soviets in Spring 1918"</i>, <b>The 
Russian Review</b>, vol. 42, pp. 1-50] 
<p>
When the opposition parties raised such issues at the VTsIK, it had 
no impact. In April 1918, one deputy <i>"protested that non-Bolshevik 
controlled soviets were being dispersed by armed force, and wanted 
to discuss the issue."</i> The chairman <i>"refus[ed] to include it in 
the agenda because of lack of supporting material"</i> and such information 
be submitted to the presidium of the soviet. The majority (i.e. the 
Bolsheviks) <i>"supported their chairman"</i> and the facts were <i>"submitted . . . 
to the presidium, where they apparently remained."</i> [Charles Duval, 
<i>"Yakov M. Sverdlov and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee 
of Soviets (VTsIK)"</i>, pp. 3-22, <b>Soviet Studies</b>, vol. XXXI, no. 1, 
pp. 13-14] Given that the VTsIK was meant to be the highest soviet 
body between congresses, the lack of concern for state repression 
against soviets and opposition groups clearly shows the Bolshevik 
contempt for soviet democracy. 
<p>
Unsurprisingly, the same contempt was expressed at the fifth 
All-Russian Soviet Congress in July 1918 when the Bolshevik 
gerrymandered it to maintain their majority. With the Mensheviks
and Right-SRs banned from the soviets, popular disenchantment 
with Bolshevik rule was expressed by voting Left-SR. The Bolsheviks 
ensured their majority in the congress and, therefore, a Bolshevik 
government, when the Bolshevik credentials committee allowed the 
Committees of Poor Peasants, which were only supported by the 
Bolsheviks, to be represented. <i>"This blatant gerrymandering ensured 
a Bolshevik majority . . Deprived of their democratic majority the 
Left SRs resorted to terror and assassinated the German ambassador 
Mirbach."</i> [Geoffrey Swain, <b>The Origins of the Russian Civil War</b>, 
p. 176] The Bolsheviks falsely labelled this an uprising against the 
soviets and the Left-SRs joined the Mensheviks and Right-SRs in being 
made illegal. It should also be mentioned that the Bolsheviks had 
attacked the anarchist movement in April, 1918. So before the start 
of the civil war all opposition groups had suffered some form of 
state repression by the hands of the Bolshevik regime (within six 
weeks of it starting, every opposition group had been effectively 
excluded from the soviets).
<p>
A similar authoritarian agenda was aimed at the armed forces and 
industry. Trotsky simply abolished the soldier's committees and 
elected officers, stating that <i>"the principle of election is 
politically purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it has 
been, in practice, abolished by decree."</i> [<b>Work, Order, Discipline</b>] 
The death penalty for disobedience was restored, along with, more 
gradually, saluting, special forms of address, separate living 
quarters and other privileges for officers. In industry, Lenin, as 
we discussed in <a href="secH3.html#sech314">section H.3.14</a>, started to champion one-man management 
armed with <i>"dictatorial"</i> powers in April, 1918. This simply replaced 
private capitalism with state capitalism, taking control of the economy 
out of the hands of the workers and placing it into the hands of the 
state bureaucracy.
<p>
As well as repressing working class self-management, the Bolsheviks 
also used state repression against rebel workers. <i>"By the early summer 
of 1918,"</i> records one historian, <i>"there were widespread anti-Bolshevik 
protests. Armed clashes occurred in the factory districts of Petrograd 
and other industrial centres."</i> [William Rosenberg, <b>Russian labour and 
Bolshevik Power</b>, p. 107] Thus the early months of Bolshevik rule were 
marked by <i>"worker protests, which then precipitated violent repressions 
against hostile workers. Such treatment further intensified the 
disenchantment of significant segments of Petrograd labour with 
Bolshevik-dominated Soviet rule."</i> [Alexander Rabinowitch, <b>Early 
Disenchantment with Bolshevik Rule</b>, p. 37]
<p>
Clearly, whether it is in regards to soviet, workplace or army 
democracy or the right of workers to strike or organise, the 
facts are the Bolsheviks had systematically eliminated them 
<b>before</b> the start of the civil war. So when Trotsky asserted 
that <i>"[i]n the beginning, the party had wished and hoped to 
preserve freedom of political struggle within the framework of 
the Soviets"</i> but that it was civil war which <i>"introduced stern 
amendments into this calculation,"</i> he was wrong. Rather than being 
<i>"regarded not as a principle, but as an episodic act of self-defence"</i> 
the opposite is the case. As we note in <a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a> from roughly 
October 1918 onwards, the Bolsheviks <b>did</b> raise party dictatorship 
to a <i>"principle"</i> and did not care that this was <i>"obviously in 
conflict with the spirit of Soviet democracy."</i> [<b>The Revolution
Betrayed</b>] As Samuel Farber notes, <i>"there is no evidence indicating 
that Lenin or any of the mainstream Bolshevik leaders lamented the 
loss of workers' control or of democracy in the soviets, or at least 
referred to these losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared with the 
replacement of War Communism by NEP in 1921."</i> [<b>Before Stalinism</b>, p. 44]
<p>
For more details see the appendix on <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a> as well as <a href="append43.html#app3">section 3</a> of the appendix on 
<a href="append43.html">"What caused the 
degeneration of the Russian Revolution?"</a>
<p> 
Secondly, it cannot be maintained that the Russian working class 
was incapable of collective action. Throughout the civil war period, 
as well as before and after, the Russian workers proved themselves 
quite capable of taking collective action -- against the Bolshevik state. 
Simply put, an <i>"atomised, individualised mass"</i> does not need extensive
state repression to control it. So while the working class <b>was</b> <i>"a 
fraction of its former size"</i> it <b>was</b> able <i>"to exercise the collective 
power it had done in 1917."</i> Significantly, rather than decrease over 
the civil war period, the mass protests <b>grew</b> in size and militancy. 
By 1921 these protests and strikes were threatening the very existence 
of the Bolshevik dictatorship, forcing it to abandon key aspects of its 
economic policies. 
<p>
This indicates a key flaw in the standard Leninist account, as Russian 
workers were more than capable of collective action throughout the Civil 
War period and after. In the Moscow area, following the lull after the 
defeat of the workers' conference movement in mid-1918 <i>"each wave of 
unrest was more powerful than the last, culminating in the mass movement 
from late 1920."</i> [Richard Sakwa, <b>Soviet Communists in Power</b>, p. 94] 
This collective struggle was not limited to Moscow. <i>"Strike action 
remained endemic in the first nine months of 1920."</i> In Petrograd province, soviet figures indicate that strikes involving more than half the 
workforce took place in both 1919 and 1920. In early 1921 <i>"industrial 
unrest broke out in a nation-wide wave of discontent"</i> which included
general strikes. [J. Aves, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 69, p. 109, and p. 120] As 
Russian anarchist Ida Mett succinctly put it: 
<p><blockquote><i>
"And if the proletariat was that exhausted how come it was still capable 
of waging virtually total general strikes in the largest and most heavily industrialised cities?"</i> [<b>The Kronstadt Rebellion</b>, p. 81] 
</blockquote><p>
An <i>"atomised"</i> and powerless working class does not need martial law,
lockouts, mass arrests and the purging of the workforce to control it.
So, clearly, the Leninist argument can be faulted. Nor is it particularly 
original, as it dates back to Lenin and was first formulated <i>"to justify 
a political clamp-down."</i> Indeed, this argument was developed in response 
to rising working class protest rather than its lack: <i>"As discontent 
amongst workers became more and more difficult to ignore, Lenin . . . 
began to argue that the consciousness of the working class had deteriorated 
. . . workers had become 'declassed.'"</i> However, there <i>"is little evidence 
to suggest that the demands that workers made at the end of 1920 . . . 
represented a fundamental change in aspirations since 1917."</i> [J. Aves, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 18, p. 90 and p. 91.] So while the <i>"working class had 
decreased in size and changed in composition,. . . the protest movement 
from late 1920 made clear that it was not a negligible force and that 
in an inchoate way it retained a vision of socialism which was not 
identified entirely with Bolshevik power . . . Lenin's arguments on the 
declassing of the proletariat was more a way of avoiding this unpleasant 
truth than a real reflection of what remained, in Moscow at least, a 
substantial physical and ideological force."</i> [Sakwa, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 261]
<p>
Then there is the logical problem. Leninists say that they are 
revolutionaries. As we noted in <a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a>, 
they inaccurately 
mock anarchists for not believing that a revolution needs to defend 
itself. Yet, ironically, their whole defence of Bolshevism rests 
on the <i>"exceptional circumstances"</i> produced by the civil war they 
claim is inevitable. If Leninism cannot handle the problems 
associated with actually conducting a revolution then, surely, it 
should be avoided at all costs. This is particularly the case as 
leading Bolsheviks all argued that the specific problems their 
latter day followers blame for their authoritarianism were natural 
results of any revolution and, consequently, unavoidable. Lenin, 
for example, stressed in 1917 that any revolution would face 
exceptionally complicated circumstances as well as civil war. 
Once in power, he continually reiterated this point as well as 
noting that revolution in an advanced capitalist nations far more 
devastating and ruinous than in Russia.
<p>
Moreover, anarchists had long argued that a revolution would be 
associated with economic disruption, isolation and civil war and, 
consequently, had developed their ideas to take these into account. 
It should also be noted that every revolution has confirmed the 
anarchist analysis. For example, the German Revolution of 1918 
faced an economic collapse which was, relatively, just as bad as 
that facing Russia the year before. However, no Leninist argues 
that the German Revolution was impossible or doomed to failure. 
Similarly, no Leninist denies that a socialist revolution was 
possible during the depths of the Great Depression of the 1930s. 
Consequently, it is not hard to conclude that for Leninists 
difficult objective circumstances place socialism off the agenda 
only when they are holding power. So even if we ignore the extensive 
evidence that Bolshevik authoritarianism started before the civil war, 
the logic of the Leninist argument is hardly convincing. 
<p>
We discuss these issues in more detail in the appendix on <a href="append43.html">"What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?"</a>
<p>
Finally, there is a counter-example which, anarchists argue, show the
impact of Bolshevik ideology on the fate of the revolution. This is the
anarchist influenced Makhnovist movement. Defending the revolution in 
the Ukraine against all groups aiming to impose their will on the masses, 
the Makhnovists were operating in the same objective conditions facing 
the Bolsheviks -- civil war, economic disruption, isolation and so forth.
However, the policies the Makhnovists implemented were radically different
than those of the Bolsheviks. While the Makhnovists called soviet 
congresses, the Bolsheviks disbanded them. The former encouraged free 
speech and organisation, the latter crushed both. While the Bolsheviks
raised party dictatorship and one-man management to ideological truisms,
the Makhnovists they stood for and implemented workplace, army, village 
and soviet self-management. This shows the failure of Bolshevism cannot 
be put down to purely objective factors like the civil war, the politics 
of Marxism played their part. 
<p>
For more information on the Makhnovists, see the appendix <a href="append46.html">"Why does the 
Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?"</a>
<p>
Therefore, anarchists have good reason to argue that one of the greatest
myths of state socialism is the idea that Bolshevik ideology played no
role in the fate of the Russian Revolution. Obviously, if the "objective" 
factors do not explain Bolshevik authoritarianism we are left with the 
question of which aspects of Bolshevik ideology impacted negatively on 
the revolution. We turn to this in the <a href="secH3.html#sech316">next section</a>.
<p>
<a name="sech316"><h2>H.3.16 Did Bolshevik ideology influence the outcome of the Russian Revolution?</h2>
<p>
As we discussed in the last section, anarchists have good reason to reject
the Leninist argument that the failure of Bolshevism in the Russian 
Revolution can be blamed purely on the difficult objective circumstances
they faces. As Noam Chomsky summarises:
<p><blockquote><i>
"In the stages leading up to the Bolshevik coup in October 1917, there 
<b>were</b> incipient socialist institutions developing in Russia -- workers' 
councils, collectives, things like that. And they survived to an extent 
once the Bolsheviks took over -- but not for very long; Lenin and Trotsky 
pretty much eliminated them as they consolidated their power. I mean,
you can argue about the <b>justification</b> for eliminating them, but the 
fact is that the socialist initiatives were pretty quickly eliminated.
<p>
"Now, people who want to justify it say, 'The Bolsheviks had to do it' -- 
that's the standard justification: Lenin and Trotsky had to do it, because 
of the contingencies of the civil war, for survival, there wouldn't have 
been food otherwise, this and that. Well, obviously the question is, was 
that true. To answer that, you've got to look at the historical facts: 
I don't think it was true. In fact, I think the incipient socialist 
structures in Russia were dismantles <b>before</b> the really dire conditions 
arose . . . But reading their own writings, my feeling is that Lenin and 
Trotsky knew what they were doing, it was conscious and understandable."</i> 
[<b>Understanding Power</b>, p. 226] 
</blockquote><p>
Chomsky is right on both counts. The attack on the basic building blocks 
of genuine socialism started before the civil war. Moreover, it did not 
happen by accident. The attacks were rooted in the Bolshevik vision of 
socialism. As Maurice Brinton notes:
<p><blockquote><i>
"there is a clear-cut and incontrovertible link between what happened 
under Lenin and Trotsky and the later practices of Stalinism . . . The 
more one unearths about this period the more difficult it becomes to 
define -- or even to see -- the 'gulf' allegedly separating what 
happened in Lenin's time from what happened later. Real knowledge of 
the facts also makes it impossible to accept . . . that the whole 
course of events was 'historically inevitable' and 'objectively 
determined'. Bolshevik ideology and practice were themselves important 
and sometimes decisive factors in the equation, at every critical stage 
of this critical period."</i> [<b>The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control</b>, p. 84]
</blockquote><p>
A key issue is the Bolsheviks support for centralisation. Long before 
the revolution, Lenin had argued that within the party it was a case of 
<i>"the transformation of the power of ideas into the power of authority, the 
subordination of lower Party bodies to higher ones."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, 
vol. 7, p. 367] Such visions of centralised organisation were the model 
for the revolutionary state and, once in power, they did not disappoint. 
<p>
However, by its very nature centralism places power into a few hands 
and effectively eliminates the popular participation required for any 
successful revolution to develop. The power placed into the hands of 
the nineteen members of the Bolshevik party's central committee was 
automatically no longer in the hands of the working class. As such, 
when Leninists argue that "objective" circumstances forced the Bolsheviks
to substitute their power for that of the masses, anarchists reply that
this substitution had occurred the movement the Bolsheviks centralised 
power and placed it into their own hands. As a result, popular
participation and institutions became to wither and die. Moreover,
once in power, the Bolsheviks were shaped by their new position and 
the social relationships it created and, consequently, implemented
policies influenced and constrained by the hierarchical and centralised 
structures they had created.
<p>
This was not the only negative impact of Bolshevik centralism. It also
spawned a bureaucracy. The rise of a state bureaucracy started immediately 
with the seizure of power. Instead of the state starting to wither away 
<i>"a new bureaucratic and centralised system emerged with extraordinary 
rapidity . . . As the functions of the state expanded so did the 
bureaucracy."</i> [Richard Sakwa, <i>"The Commune State in Moscow in 1918,"</i> 
pp. 429-449, <b>Slavic Review</b>, vol. 46, no. 3/4, pp. 437-8] This was 
a striking confirmation of the anarchist analysis which argued that a 
new bureaucratic class develops around the centralised bodies created 
by the governing party. This body would soon become riddled with personal 
influences and favours, so ensuring that members could be sheltered from 
popular control while, at the same time, exploiting its power to feather 
its own nest. 
<p>
Another problem was the Bolshevik vision of (centralised) democracy 
looked like. Trotsky is typical. In April 1918 he argued that the key
factor in democracy was that the central power was elected by the masses,
meaning that functional democracy from below could be replaced by 
appointments from above. Once elected the government was to be given 
total power to make decisions and appoint people as required as it is 
<i>"better able to judge in the matter than"</i> the masses. The sovereign 
people were expected to simply obey their public servants until such 
time as they <i>"dismiss that government and appoint another."</i> Trotsky
raised the question of whether it was possible for the government 
to act <i>"against the interests of the labouring and peasant masses?"</i> 
And answered no! Yet it is obvious that Trotsky's claim that <i>"there 
can be no antagonism between the government and the mass of the 
workers, just as there is no antagonism between the administration 
of the union and the general assembly of its members"</i> is just 
nonsense. [<b>Leon Trotsky Speaks</b>, p. 113] The history of trade 
unionism is full of examples of committees betraying their membership. 
Needless to say, the subsequent history Lenin's government shows that 
there can be <i>"antagonism"</i> between rulers and ruled and that appointments
are always a key way to further elite interests.
<p>
This vision of top-down "democracy" can, of course, be traced back to 
Marx's arguments of 1850 and Lenin's comments that the <i>"organisational 
principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy"</i> was <i>"to proceed from the 
top downward."</i> (see sections <a href="secH3.html#sech32">H.3.2</a> and <a href="secH3.html#sech33">H.3.3</a>). By equating centralised, 
top-down decision making by an elected government with "democracy," the 
Bolsheviks had the ideological justification to eliminate the functional democracy associated with the soviets, factory committees and soldiers 
committees. The Bolshevik vision of democracy became the means by which 
real democracy was eliminated in area after area of Russian working 
class life. Needless to say, a state which eliminates functional 
democracy in the grassroots will not stay democratic in any meaningful 
sense for long. 
<p>
Nor does it come as too great a surprise to discover that a government 
which considers itself as <i>"better able to judge"</i> things than the people
finally decides to annul any election results it dislikes. As we discuss
in <a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>, this perspective is at the heart of vanguardism, for in
Bolshevik ideology the party, not the class, is in the final analysis 
the repository of class consciousness. This means that once in power 
it has a built-in tendency to override the decisions of the masses it 
claimed to represent and justify this in terms of the advanced position 
of the party. Combine this with a vision of "democracy" which is highly 
centralised and which undermines local participation then we have the 
necessary foundations for the turning of party power into party 
dictatorship.
<p>
Which brings us to the next issue, namely the Bolshevik idea that the 
party should seize power, not the working class as a whole (see 
<a href="secH3.html#sech311">section H.3.11</a>). Lenin in 1917 continually repeating the basic idea that the 
Bolsheviks <i>"can and must take state power into their own hands."</i> 
[<b>Selected Works</b>, vol. 2, p. 329] He equated party power with popular 
power and argued that Russia would be governed by the Bolshevik party. 
The question instantly arises of what happens if the masses turn against 
the party? The destruction of soviet democracy in the spring and summer 
of 1918 answers that question (see last section). It is not a great step 
to party dictatorship <b>over</b> the proletariat from the premises of 
Bolshevism. In a clash between soviet democracy and party power, the 
Bolsheviks consistently favoured the latter -- as would be expected 
given their ideology.
<p>
Then there is the Bolshevik vision of socialism. As we discussed in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech312">section H.3.12</a>, the Bolsheviks saw the socialist economy as being built 
upon the centralised organisations created by capitalism. They confused 
state capitalism with socialism. <i>"State capitalism,"</i> Lenin wrote in
May 1917, <i>"is a complete <b>material</b> preparation for socialism, the 
threshold of socialism"</i> and so socialism <i>"is nothing but the next step 
forward from state capitalist monopoly."</i> It is <i>"merely state capitalist 
monopoly <b>made to benefit the whole people</b>; by this token it <b>ceases</b> 
to be capitalist monopoly."</i> [<b>The Threatening Catastrophe and how to 
avoid it</b>, p. 38 and p. 37] A few months later, he was talking about how 
the institutions of state capitalism could be taken over and used to 
create socialism. Unsurprisingly, when defending 
the need for state capitalism in the spring of 1918 against the "Left 
Communists," Lenin stressed that he gave his <i>"'high' appreciation of 
state capitalism"</i> <i>"<b>before</b> the Bolsheviks seized power."</i> [<b>Selected 
Works</b>, vol. 2, p. 636] And, as Lenin noted, his praise for state 
capitalism can be found in his <b>State and Revolution</b>.
<p>
Given this perspective, it is unsurprising that workers' control
was not given a high priority once the Bolsheviks seized power.
While in order to gain support the Bolsheviks <b>had</b> paid lip-service
to the idea of workers' control, as we noted in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech314">section H.3.14</a> the
party had always given that slogan a radically different interpretation
than the factory committees had. While the factory committees had
seen workers' control as being exercised directly by the workers and
their class organisations, the Bolshevik leadership saw it in terms 
of state control in which the factory committees would play, at best,
a minor role. It is unsurprising to discover which vision of socialism 
was actually introduced:
<p><blockquote><i>
"On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, the [factory] 
committee leaders sought to bring their model into being. At each point 
the party leadership overruled them. The result was to vest both 
managerial <b>and</b> control powers in organs of the state which were 
subordinate to the central authorities, and formed by them."</i> [Thomas 
F. Remington, <b>Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia</b>, p. 38] 
<p></blockquote>
Given his vision of socialism, Lenin's rejection of the factory 
committee's model comes as no surprise. The Bolsheviks, as Lenin had 
promised, built from the top-down their system of unified administration 
based on the Tsarist system of central bodies which governed and regulated 
certain industries during the war (and, moreover, systematically stopped
the factory committee organising together). [Brinton, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 36 and
pp. 18-9] This was very centralised and very inefficient: 
<p><blockquote><i>
"it seems apparent that many workers themselves . . . had now come to 
believe . . . that confusion and anarchy [sic!] <b>at the top</b> were the 
major causes of their difficulties, and with some justification. The 
fact was that Bolshevik administration was chaotic . . . Scores of 
competitive and conflicting Bolshevik and Soviet authorities issued 
contradictory orders, often brought to factories by armed Chekists. 
The Supreme Economic Council. . . issu[ed] dozens of orders and pass[ed] 
countless directives with virtually no real knowledge of affairs."</i> 
[William G. Rosenberg, <b>Russian Labour and Bolshevik Power</b>, p. 116] 
</blockquote><p>
Faced with the chaos that their own politics, in part, had created,
the Bolsheviks turned to one-management in April, 1918. This was
applied first on the railway workers. Like all bosses, the Bolsheviks 
blamed the workers for the failings of their own policies. The
abolishing the workers' committees resulted in <i>"a terrifying proliferation 
of competitive and contradictory Bolshevik authorities, each with a 
claim of life or death importance . . . Railroad journals argued 
plaintively about the correlation between failing labour productivity 
and the proliferation of competing Bolshevik authorities."</i> Rather 
than improving things, Lenin's one-man management did the opposite, 
<i>"leading in many places . . . to a greater degree of confusion and 
indecision"</i> and <i>"this problem of contradictory authorities clearly 
intensified, rather than lessened."</i> Indeed, the <i>"result of replacing 
workers' committees with one man rule . . . on the railways . . . was 
not directiveness, but distance, and increasing inability to make 
decisions appropriate to local conditions. Despite coercion, orders 
on the railroads were often ignored as unworkable."</i> It got so bad that 
<i>"a number of local Bolshevik officials . . . began in the fall of 1918 
to call for the restoration of workers' control, not for ideological 
reasons, but because workers themselves knew best how to run the line 
efficiently, and might obey their own central committee's directives 
if they were not being constantly countermanded."</i> [William G. Rosenberg, 
<b>Workers' Control on the Railroads</b>, p. D1208, p. D1207, p. D1213 and 
pp. D1208-9] 
<p>
That it was Bolshevik policies and not workers' control which was
to blame for the state of the railways can be seen from what happened
<b>after</b> Lenin's one-man management was imposed. The centralised 
Bolshevik economic system quickly demonstrated how to <b>really</b> 
mismanage an economy. The Bolshevik onslaught against workers' 
control in favour of a centralised, top-down economic regime ensured 
that the economy was handicapped by an unresponsive system which 
wasted the local knowledge in the grassroots in favour of orders 
from above which were issued in ignorance of local conditions. This 
lead to unused stock coexisting with acute scarcity and the centre 
unable to determine the correct proportions required at the base. 
Unfinished products were transferred to other regions while local 
factories were shut down, wasted both time and resources (and given 
the state of the transport network, this was a doubly inefficient). 
The inefficiency of central financing seriously jeopardised local 
activity and the centre had displayed a great deal of conservatism 
and routine thinking. In spite of the complaints from below, the 
Communist leadership continued on its policy of centralisation (in 
fact, the ideology of centralisation was reinforced). [Silvana Malle, 
<b>The Economic Organisation of War Communism 1918-1921</b>, p. 232-3 and 
pp. 269-75] 
<p>
A clearer example of the impact of Bolshevik ideology on the fate of the revolution would be hard to find. Simply put, while the situation was 
pretty chaotic in early 1918, this does not prove that the factory 
committee's socialism was not the most efficient way of running things 
under the (difficult) circumstances. After all, rates of <i>"output and 
productivity began to climb steadily after" January 1918 and "[i]n 
some factories, production doubled or tripled in the early months of 
1918 . . . Many of the reports explicitly credited the factory committees 
for these increases."</i> [Carmen Sirianni, <b>Workers' Control and Socialist 
Democracy</b>, p. 109] Unless of course, like the Bolsheviks, you have a 
dogmatic belief that centralism is always more efficient. Needless to 
say, Lenin never wavered in his support for one-man management nor in 
his belief in the efficiency of centralism to solve all problems, 
particularly the problems it itself created in abundance. Nor did his 
explicit call to reproduce capitalist social relations in production 
cause him any concern for, in Lenin's eyes, if the primary issue was 
property and not who <b>manages</b> the means of production, then factory 
committees are irrelevant in determining the socialist nature of the 
economy. 
<p>
Post-October Bolshevik policy is a striking confirmation of the anarchist 
argument that a centralised structure would stifle the initiative of the 
masses and their own organs of self-management. Not only was it disastrous 
from a revolutionary perspective, it was hopelessly inefficient. The 
constructive self-activity of the people was replaced by the bureaucratic 
machinery of the state. The Bolshevik onslaught on workers' control, like 
their attacks on soviet democracy and workers' protest, undoubtedly 
engendered apathy and cynicism in the workforce, alienating even more 
the positive participation required for building socialism which the 
Bolshevik mania for centralism had already marginalised. 
<p>
The pre-revolution Bolshevik vision of a socialist system was fundamentally 
centralised and, consequently, top-down. This was what was implemented 
post-October, with disastrous results. At each turning point, the Bolsheviks 
tended to implement policies which reflected their prejudices in favour of 
centralism, nationalisation and party power. Unsurprisingly, this also 
undermined the genuine socialist tendencies which existed at the time. 
Simply put, the Bolshevik vision of socialism and democracy played a key 
role in the failure of the revolution. Therefore, the Leninist idea that 
politics of the Bolsheviks had no influence on the outcome of the revolution, 
that their policies during the revolution were a product purely of objective 
forces, is unconvincing. 
<p>
For further discussion of these and other issues, see the appendices on
<a href="append44.html">"How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?"</a> and <a href="append41.html">"What happened during the Russian Revolution?"</a>
<p>
</BODY>
</HTML>