File: secH3.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 13.4-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: squeeze, wheezy
size: 24,760 kB
ctags: 640
sloc: makefile: 27
file content (7429 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 452,307 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<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 
Soviet Union, China, Cuba and a host of other authoritarian, 
centralised, exploitative 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 are in order to put people off socialism. 
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><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><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 
world-wide."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 20]
</blockquote></p><p>
That, to a large degree happened with anarchists simply 
calling themselves by that name (without adjectives) or 
libertarians 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 being 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 
and hierarchical 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 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><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 and better described as state capitalism). 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). The Stalinist <i>"leadership thus portrays itself as
socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists
adopt the same pretence in order to forestall the threat of a more free
and just society."</i> The latter use it as <i>"a powerful ideological
weapon to enforce conformity and obedience,"</i> to <i>"ensure that
the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these
[capitalist] institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, 
the only alternative to the 'socialist' dungeon."</i> In reality, <i>"if 
there is a relation"</i> between Bolshevism and socialism, <i>"it is the
relation of contradiction."</i> [<i>"The Soviet Union versus Socialism"</i>,
pp. 47-52, <b>The Radical Papers</b>, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.),
pp. 47-8]
</p><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 offspring Bolshevism). 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. 14]
</p><p>
Such a critique raises the problem of which forms of "Marxism" 
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 "real" Marxists (or 
Marxist-Leninists, or Trotskyists, and so on) and are just "sects" 
without "real" 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><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 thinkers (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 <b>Socialist Party
of Great Britain</b> 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><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, as Chomsky pointed out, <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> 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 for the seeds from which 
authoritarianism grew post-October 1917 existed from the start. 
Anarchists agree with Chomsky, namely 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>Language and Politics</b>, p. 152]
</p><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 
argued, <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. 108 and p. 109] In Marx's 
words, the <i>"tradition of all the dead generations weighs 
down like a nightmare on the brain of the living."</i> Yet his
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><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 were Lenin (or,
following Lenin, Social Democracy) which "misinterpreted" 
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 in the 
progress then there has to be a fundamental flaw somewhere. 
Thus Cornelius Castoriadis:
</p><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><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><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><p>
Thus this section of our FAQ will attempt to explain the various
myths of Marxism and provide an anarchist critique of it 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, given the
scope of this revolution, we will not discuss it fully here except
when it provides useful empirical evidence for our critique (see
<a href="secH6.html">section H.6</a> for more on the Russian 
Revolution). 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><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></a>

<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 [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 stressed that the means to this 
apparently similar end were different. The Marxists 
<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><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><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><p>
First, there is 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><p>
Marxists disagree. Most Marxists are also Leninists. They 
argue that we must form a <i>"vanguard"</i> party based on the 
principles of <i>"democratic centralism"</i> complete with 
institutionalised and hierarchical leadership. 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 gathers 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><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><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><p>
Then 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 "workers'" state, a state, moreover, in which 
their party will be in charge. Trotsky, writing in 1906, made this 
clear: <i>"Every 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, 
<b>Marxist Revolutionaries and the Dilemma of Power</b>, p. 105] This 
fits in with Marx's and Engels's repeated equation of universal suffrage 
with the political power or political supremacy of the working class. 
In other words, <i>"political power"</i> simply means the ability to 
nominate a government (see <a href="secH3.html#sech310">section H.3.10</a>). 
</p><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. Any state is simply rule by a 
few and so is incompatible with socialism (we discuss this issue 
in <a href="secH3.html#sech37">section H.3.7</a>). 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><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. 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 the 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><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 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] 
</p><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>"country-wide, 
all-embracing workers' control over the capitalists"</i> (and
this is the <i>"important thing"</i>, <b>not</b> <i>"confiscation of
the capitalists' property"</i>) [<b>The Lenin Anthology</b>, p. 402] 
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 replacing capitalists with 
(state appointed) <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><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> and so
<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><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. 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". As the example of the Makhnovists 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><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><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, 
<i>"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>Selected Works</b>, p. 53] 
</p><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 words, <i>"die[d] out."</i> [Marx and Engels, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
pp. 52-3 and p. 424]
</p><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] Thus Marx presents <i>"a 
formulation that calls not for the ultimate abolition of the
State but suggests that it will continue to exist (however 
differently it is reconstituted by the proletariat) as a 
'nonpolitical' (i.e., administrative) source of authority."</i>
[Murray Bookchin, <b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 196fn]
</p><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 reality, <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><p>
George Barrett's words also seem appropriate:
</p><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>, p. 348]
</blockquote></p><p>
Indeed, by giving the state increased economic activities it ensures
that this so-called "transitional" state grows with the implementation
of the Marxist programme. Moreover, given the economic tasks the state
now does it hardly makes much sense to assert it will "wither away" 
- unless you think that the centralised economic planning which this
regime does also "withers away." Marx argued that once the <i>"abolition 
of classes"</i> has <i>"been attained"</i> then <i>"the power of
the State  . . . disappears, and the functions of government are 
transformed into simple administrative functions."</i> [Marx, Engels
and Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 76] In other 
words, the state apparatus does not "wither away" rather its function 
as an instrument of class rule does. This is an automatic result of 
classes themselves withering away as private property is nationalised. 
Yet as class is defined as being rooted in ownership of the means of 
production, this becomes a meaningless tautology. Obviously, as the state 
centralises the means of production into its own hands then (the existing)
economic classes cease to exist and, as a result, the state "disappears." 
Yet the power and size of the State is, in fact, increased by this process 
and so the elimination of economic classes actually increases the power 
and size of the state machine.
</p><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] Thus the <i>"central 
confusions of Marxist political theorists"</i> are found in the discussion 
on the state in <b>The Communist Manifesto</b>. If class is <i>"an exclusively 
economic category, and if the old conditions of production are changed so that 
there is no longer any private ownership of the means of production, then 
classes no longer exist by definition when they are defined in terms of . . . 
the private ownership of the means of production . . . If Marx also defines 
'political power' as 'the organised power of one [economic] class for oppressing 
another', then the . . . argument is no more than a tautology, and is trivially 
true."</i> Unfortunately, as history has confirmed, <i>"we cannot conclude . . . 
if it is a mere tautology, that with a condition of no private ownership of the 
means of production there could be no . . . dominant and subordinate 
strata."</i> [Alan Carter, <b>Marx: A Radical Critique</b>, p. 221 and pp. 221-2]
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, 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 ownership of the means of production may not exist, social 
classes (defined in terms of inequality of power, authority and control) 
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><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'tre</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><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><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>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 145]
</blockquote></p><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><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><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>). 
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 the workplace. 
</p><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><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 . . . 
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><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> 
[Bookchin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 272 and pp. 273-4]
</p><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> 
<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><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><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 "socialism" as
being a "workers' state" presided over by a "revolutionary" 
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><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></a>

<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 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). Anarchism,
it is argued, should be placed in the latter camp, with Proudhon and
Bakunin showing that anarchist libertarianism simply a <i>"myth"</i>.
</p><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><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 federations of working class associations for both credit 
(mutual banks) and production (workers' associations or co-operatives) as well 
as federations of communes (democratically organised communities). The workers, 
<i>"organised among themselves, without the assistance of the capitalist"</i> 
would march by <i>"[w]ork 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 
argued, <i>"consists in organising  . . . the <b>producers,</b> and by 
this subjecting capital and 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] Ultimately, <i>"any revolution, to be effective, must 
be spontaneous and emanate, not from the heads of authorities, but from 
the bowels of the people . . . the only connection between government and 
labour is that labour, in organising itself, has the abrogation of governments 
as its mission."</i> [Proudhon, <b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 52]
</p><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 wrote 
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 and he argued 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><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><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. Moreover, the attempt to suggest that 
anarchism is part of the elitist <i>"socialism from above"</i> school rests
on little more that selective quoting of Proudhon and Bakunin (including 
from Bakunin's pre-anarchist days) to present a picture of their ideas
distinctly at odds with reality. 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><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 
dismissed 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><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><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>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><p>
It may be argued that Marx and Engels did not exclude such a solution
to the social question. For example, we find Engels stating that <i>"the 
question is not whether the proletariat when it comes to power will simply 
seize by force the tools of production, the raw materials and means of 
subsistence"</i> or <i>"whether it will redeem property therein by 
instalments spread over a long period."</i> To attempt to predict this 
<i>"for all cases would be utopia-making."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, 
vol. 23, p. 386] However, Engels is assuming that the social revolution
(the proletariat <i>"com[ing] to power"</i>) comes <b>before</b> the
social revolution (the seizure of the means of production). In this,
we can assume that it is the "revolutionary" government which does the
seizing (or redeeming) rather than rebel workers.
</p><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>Op. Cit.</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 elect representatives)? Bakunin quite
rightly answered in the negative. While representative 
democracy may be acceptable to ensure bourgeois rule, it 
cannot be assumed that it can 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><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 argued:
</p><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 
than '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><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"</i>
and <i>"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> 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>Selected Works</b>, p. 44, p. 46 and p. 45] 
</p><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 Engels'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, likewise, repeatedly argued along identical lines. 
For example, in 1855, he stated that <i>"universal suffrage . . . implies 
the assumption of political power as means of satisfying [the workers'] 
social means"</i> and, in Britain, <i>"revolution is the direct content 
of universal suffrage."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 11, pp. 335-6] Yet 
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 working class, i.e. majority, power?
</p><p>
This seems highly unlikely because such institutions are designed to 
place policy-making in the hands of representatives and were created 
explicitly to <b>exclude</b> mass participation in order to ensure
bourgeois control (see <a href="secB2.html#secb25">section B.2.5</a>). 
They 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 does not, 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><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> which 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 
discussion on direct action and why anarchists reject electioneering). 
</p><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 and undoubtedly
influenced by the rise of Social-Democracy as an electoral
power, it stressed the use of the ballot box as the ideal way, 
if not the only way, for the party to take power. He noted
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><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 leadership to support their 
state in the First World War simply proved that radical words 
cannot defeat reformist tactics. 
</p><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><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><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><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><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></a>

<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><p>
From this legacy, Leninism took the statist themes. This 
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><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>. 
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><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: <i>"Limitation, in principle, 
of revolutionary action to pressure from below and renunciation
of pressure also from above is <b>anarchism.</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
vol. 8, p. 474, p. 478, p. 480 and p. 481] 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><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>Op. Cit.</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 <i>"Bolsheviks must assume power."</i> The 
Bolsheviks <i>"can and <b>must</b> take state power into their 
own hands."</i> He raised the question of <i>"will the Bolsheviks 
dare take over full state power alone?"</i> and answered it: <i>"I 
have already had occasion . . . to answer this question in the 
affirmative."</i> Moreover, <i>"a political party . . . would have 
no right to exist, would be unworthy of the name of party . . . if 
it refused to take power when opportunity offers."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
vol. 26, p. 19 and p. 90] Lenin's <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 
<i>"the Bolshevik Party"</i> to <i>"<b>administer</b> Russia,"</i> 
to be the <i>"governing party."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 27, 
pp. 241-2] Thus Bolshevik power was equated with working class power.
</p><p>
Towards the end of 1917, he stressed this vision of a Bolshevik
run <i>"democracy from below"</i> by arguing that since <i>"the 1905 
revolution Russia has been governed by 130,000 landowners . . . Yet 
we are told that the 240,000 members of the Bolshevik party will not 
be able to govern Russia, govern her in the interests of the poor."</i> 
He even equated rule by the party with rule by the class, noting that
<i>"proletarian revolutionary power"</i> and <i>Bolshevik power"</i>
are <i>"now one the same thing."</i> He admitted that the proletariat 
could not actually govern itself for <i>"[w]e know that an unskilled labourer 
or a cook cannot immediately get on with the job of state administration 
. . . We demand that <b>training</b> in th[is] work . . . be conducted 
by the class-conscious workers and soldiers."</i> The <i>"class-conscious 
workers must lead, but for the work of administration they can enlist the 
vast mass of the working and oppressed people."</i> Thus democratic 
sounding rhetoric, in reality, hide the fact that the party would govern 
(i.e., have power) and working people would simply administer the means 
by which its decisions would be implemented. Lenin also indicated that 
once in power, the Bolsheviks <i>"shall be fully and unreservedly in favour
of a strong state power and of centralism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 26, 
p. 111, p. 179, p. 113, p. 114 and p. 116] 
</p><p>
Clearly, Lenin's position had not changed. The goal of the revolution 
was simply a Bolshevik government, which, if it were to be effective, 
had to have the real power in society. Thus, socialism would be 
implemented from above, by the <i>"strong"</i> and centralised government 
of the <i>"class-conscious workers"</i> who would <i>"lead"</i> and so
the party would <i>"govern"</i> Russia, in the <i>"interests"</i> of
the masses. Rather than govern themselves, they would be subject to 
<i>"the power of the Bolsheviks"</i>. While, eventually, the <i>"working"</i> 
masses would take part in the administration of state decisions, their 
role would be the same as under capitalism as, we must note, there is a
difference between making policy and carrying it out, between the 
<i>"work of administration"</i> and governing, a difference Lenin obscures. 
In fact, the name of this essay clearly shows who would be in control under 
Lenin: <i>"Can the Bolsheviks retain State Power?"</i> 
</p><p>
As one expert noted, the Bolsheviks made <i>"a distinction between the 
execution of policy and the making of policy. The 'broad masses' were to 
be the executors of state decrees, not the formulators of legislation."</i> 
However, by <i>"claiming to draw 'all people' into [the state] administration,
the Bolsheviks claimed also that they were providing a greater degree
of democracy than the parliamentary state."</i> [Frederick I. Kaplan,
<b>Bolshevik Ideology and the Ethics of Soviet Labor</b>, p. 212] The 
difference is important. Ante Ciliga, once a political prisoner 
under Stalin, once noted how the secret police <i>"liked to boast of the
working class origin of its henchmen."</i> He quoted a fellow prisoner, 
and ex-Tsarist convict, who retorted: <i>"You are wrong if you believe
that in the days of the Tsar the gaolers were recruited from among
dukes and the executioners from among the princes!"</i> [<b>The Russian
Enigma</b>, pp. 255-6]
</p><p>
All of which explains the famous leaflet addressed to the workers of 
Petrograd immediately after the October Revolution, informing them 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> 
as the <i>"best way to support the new Government of Soviets in these 
days"</i> was <i>"by doing your job."</i> [quoted 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><p>
The implications of Lenin's position became clearer after the Bolsheviks 
had taken power. Now it was the concrete situation of a "revolutionary" 
government exercising power <i>"from above"</i> onto the very class it 
claimed to represent. As Lenin explained to his political police, the 
Cheka, in 1920:
</p><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>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 42, p. 170]
</blockquote></p><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 main 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 "revolutionary" 
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 "revolutionary" 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 
<a href="secH6.html">section H.6"</a> the ideology of the ruling 
party and the ideas held by the masses are also factors in history).
</p><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, <b>in general</b>, between the dictatorship of 
the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders."</i> [<b>The Lenin Anthology</b>,
p. 568] Here we provide his description of the <i>"top-down"</i> nature of 
Bolshevik rule:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"In Russia today, the connection between leaders, party, class and masses 
. . . are concretely as follows: the dictatorship is exercised by the 
proletariat organised in the Soviets and is guided 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 has 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 to each bureau. This, it would 
appear, is a full-fledged 'oligarchy.' No important political or 
organisational question is decided by any state institution in our 
republic [sic!] without the guidance of the Party's Central Committee.
</p><p>
"In its work, the Party relies directly on the <b>trade unions</b>,
which . . .have a membership of over four million and are formally 
<b>non-Party</b>. Actually, all the directing bodies of the vast
majority of the unions . . . are made up of Communists, and carry 
out of all the directives of the Party. Thus . . . we have a formally
non-communist . . . very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of 
which the Party is closely linked up with the <b>class</b> and <b>the
masses,</b> and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, 
the <b>class dictatorship</b> of the class is exercised."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 571-2]
</blockquote></p><p>
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 this talk about 'from above' <b>or</b> 
'from below,' about 'the dictatorship of leaders' <b>or</b> 'the 
dictatorship of the masses,'"</i> is <i>"ridiculous and childish 
nonsense."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 573] Lenin, of course, did not bother 
to view <i>"proletarian"</i> state power <i>"from below,"</i> from the 
viewpoint of the proletariat. If he had, 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? Which suggests that there are fundamental differences,
at least for the masses, between <i>"from above"</i> and <i>"from below."</i>
</p><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 also universalised 
Lenin's argument when he pondered the important decisions of the 
revolution and who would make them in his reply to the delegate 
from the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT:
</p><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><p>
As is obvious, Trotsky was drawing general lessons from the Russian
Revolution 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><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 in 1917 <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 Trotsky argued for the <i>"objective necessity"</i> of the 
<i>"revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party"</i> well into
the 1930s (see <a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a>) .
</p><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><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><p>
So 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><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></a>

<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 
critique rooted in the ideology and its practice or whether 
it presents a picture at odds with both. As Maurice Brinton 
put it in the introduction to his classic account of workers' 
control in the Russian Revolution:
</p><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 Bolshevik 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 forever 
to remain in the realm of rhetoric."</i> [<b>The Bolsheviks 
and Workers' Control</b>, p. xv]
</blockquote></p><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><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 <a href="secH1.html#sech17">section H.1.7</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><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><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 <b>Industrial Workers of the World</b>, 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> The same year he explained to the Second 
Congress of the Communist International that <i>"[t]oday, 
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>Proceedings 
and Documents of the Second Congress 1920</b>, vol. 2, p. 928 and 
pp. 151-2] 
</p><p>
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, as it expresses the reality of Bolshevism rather than
its rhetoric.
</p><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 once in power. As we discuss in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a>, Leninism came not
only to practice but to argue theoretically for state power explicitly 
to eliminate such control from below. How can the numerous statements 
of leading Leninists (including Lenin and Trotsky) on the necessity 
of party dictatorship be reconciled with it? 
</p><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>Collected Works</b>, vol. 27, p. 316] To <b>fail</b> to note this
link between Lenin and the Stalinist bureaucracy on this issue is quoting 
<i>"selectively."</i> 
</p><p>
The contradictions pile up. Harman 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 genuine socialism while he defends the Bolshevik suppression of the 
Kronstadt revolt for the same goals. 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>). Once in 
power, the councils were quickly marginalised and became little
more than a fig-leaf for party rule. 
</p><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). Morrow stated 
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, say, Trotsky's opinion of ten 
years previously that <i>"[w]ith us the dictatorship of the party 
(quite falsely disputed theoretically by Stalin) is the expression 
of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat . . . The 
dictatorship of a party is a part of the socialist revolution"</i>?
[<b>Leon Trotsky on China</b>, p. 251] Or with Lenin's 
and Trotsky's repeated call for the party to seize and exercise power? 
Or their opinion that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat 
cannot directly exercise the proletarian dictatorship? How can the 
working class <i>"have all power"</i> if power is held not by mass 
organisations but rather by a vanguard party? Particularly, as we note 
in <a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a> when party dictatorship
is placed at the heart of Leninist ideology.
</p><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>The 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 anarchists 
argue. Ironically, the likes of Lenin and Trotsky concurred, 
incorporating the necessity of party power into their ideology as a 
key lesson of the Russian 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><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="secH6.html">section H.6</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 and, moreover, intensified <b>after</b> its end. 
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. In fact . . . the very opposite is
the case."</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 "social context" explains the politics and actions of 
the Bolsheviks seems incredulous. 
</p><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! 
</p><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></a>

<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><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><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><p>
A classic example of this appropriation of anarchist ideas into 
Marxism is provided by the general strike. In 1905, Russia had
a near revolution in which the general strike played a key role. 
Unsurprisingly, as anarchists had been arguing for the general strike
since the 1870s, we embraced these events as a striking confirmation 
of our long held ideas on revolutionary change. Marxists had a harder 
task as such ideas were alien to mainstream Social Democracy. Yet faced 
with the success and power of the general strike in practice, the more 
radical Marxists, like Rosa Luxemburg, had to incorporate it into their 
politics. 
</p><p>
Yet they faced a problem. The general strike was indelibly linked 
with such hearsays as anarchism and syndicalism. Had not Engels himself 
proclaimed the nonsense of the general strike in his diatribe <i>"The 
Bakuninists at work"</i>? Had his words not been repeated ad infinitum 
against anarchists (and radical socialists) who questioned the wisdom 
of social democratic tactics, its reformism and bureaucratic inertia? 
The Marxist radicals knew that Engels would again be invoked by the
bureaucrats and reformists in the Social Democratic movement to throw 
cold water over any attempt to adjust Marxist politics to the economic 
power of the masses as expressed in mass strikes. The Social Democratic 
hierarchy would simply dismiss them as "anarchists." This meant that 
Luxemburg was faced with the problem of proving Engels was right, even 
when he was wrong. 
</p><p>
She did so in an ingenious way. Like Engels himself, she simply 
distorted what the anarchists thought about the general strike in order 
to make it acceptable to Social Democracy. Her argument was simple. 
Yes, Engels had been right to dismiss the "general strike" idea of 
the anarchists in the 1870s. But today, thirty years later, Social 
Democrats should support the general strike (or mass strike, as she 
called it) because the concepts were different. The anarchist "general 
strike" was utopian. The Marxist "mass strike" was practical.
</p><p>
To discover why, we need to see what Engels had argued in the 1870s. 
Engels, mocked the anarchists (or "Bakuninists") for thinking that 
<i>"a general strike is the lever employed by which the social revolution 
is started."</i> He accusing them of imagining that <i>"[o]ne fine 
morning, all the workers in all the industries of a country, or even of 
the whole world, stop work, thus forcing the propertied classes either 
humbly to submit within four weeks at most, or to attack the workers, 
who would then have the right to defend themselves and use the 
opportunity to pull down the entire old society."</i> He stated that 
at the September 1 1873 Geneva congress of the anarchist Alliance of 
Social Democracy, it was <i>"universally admitted that to carry out 
the general strike strategy, there had to be a perfect organisation 
of the working class and a plentiful funds."</i> He noted that that 
was <i>"the rub"</i> as no government would stand by and <i>"allow the 
organisation or funds of the workers to reach such a level."</i> Moreover, 
the revolution would happen long before <i>"such an ideal organisation"</i> 
was set up and if they had been <i>"there would be no need to use the 
roundabout way of a general strike"</i> to achieve it. [<b>Collected 
Works</b>, vol. 23, pp. 584-5]
</p><p>
Rosa Luxemburg repeated Engels arguments in her essay <i>"The Mass 
Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions"</i> in order to 
show how her support for the general strike was in no way contrary 
to Marxism. [<b>Rosa Luxemburg Speaks</b>, pp. 153-218] Her "mass strike" 
was different from the anarchist "general strike" as mocked by Engels 
as it was dynamic process and could not be seen as one act, one 
isolated action which overthrows the bourgeoisie. Rather, the 
mass strike to the product of the everyday class struggle within 
society, leads to a direct confrontation with the capitalist state and 
so it was inseparable from the revolution. 
</p><p>
The only problem with all this is that the anarchists did not 
actually argue along the lines Engels and Luxemburg claimed. 
Most obviously, as we indicated in <a href="secH2.html#sech28">section H.2.8</a>, 
Bakunin saw the general strike as a <b>dynamic</b> process which
would <b>not</b> be set for a specific date and did <b>not</b> need all 
workers to be organised before hand. As such, Bakunin's ideas are totally 
at odds with Engels assertions on what anarchist ideas on the general 
strike were about (they, in fact, reflect what actually happened in 1905).
</p><p>
But what of the "Bakuninists"? Again, Engels account leaves a lot to be 
desired. Rather than the September 1873 Geneva congress being, as he 
claimed, of the (disbanded) Alliance of Social Democracy, it was in 
fact a meeting of the non-Marxist federations of the First International. 
Contra Engels, anarchists did not see the general strike as requiring 
all workers to be perfectly organised and then passively folding arms 
<i>"one fine morning."</i> The Belgian libertarians who proposed the 
idea at the congress saw it as a tactic which could mobilise workers for 
revolution, <i>"a means of bringing a movement onto the street and 
leading the workers to the barricades."</i> Moreover, leading anarchist
James Guillaume explicitly rejected the idea that it had <i>"to break out 
everywhere at an appointed day and hour"</i> with a resounding <i>"No!"</i> 
In fact, he stressed that they did <i>"not even need to bring up this 
question and suppose things could be like this. Such a supposition could 
lead to fatal mistakes. The revolution has to be contagious."</i> [quoted 
by Caroline Cahm, <b>Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism 
1872-1886</b>, p. 223 and p. 224] 
</p><p>
Another account of this meeting notes that how the general strike was to 
start was <i>"left unsaid"</i>, with Guillaume <i>"recognis[ing] that it 
as impossible for the anarchists simply to set the hour for the general
strike."</i> Another anarchist did <i>"not believe that the strike was
a sufficient means to win the social revolution"</i> but could <i>"set
the stage for the success of an armed insurrection."</i> Only one 
delegate, regardless of Engels' claims, thought it <i>"demanded the
utmost organisation of the working class"</i> and if that were the
case <i>"then the general strike would not be necessary."</i> This
was the delegate from the reformist British trade unions and he 
was <i>"attack[ing]"</i> the general strike as <i>"an absurd and
impractical proposition."</i> [Phil H. Goodstein, <b>The Theory of 
the General Strike</b>, pp. 43-5]
</p><p>
Perhaps this is why Engels did not bother to quote a single anarchist 
when recounting their position on this matter? Needless to say, 
Leninists continue to parrot Engels assertions to this day. The
facts are somewhat different. Clearly, the "anarchist" strategy of 
overthrowing the bourgeoisie with one big general strike set for a 
specific date exists only in Marxist heads, nowhere else. Once we remove 
the distortions promulgated by Engels and repeated by Luxemburg, we see 
that the 1905 revolution and <i>"historical dialectics"</i> did not, as 
Luxemburg claim, validate Engels and disprove anarchism. Quite the reverse 
as the general strikes in Russia followed the anarchist ideas of a what a 
general strike would be like quite closely. Little wonder, then, that 
Kropotkin argued that the 1905 general strike <i>"demonstrated"</i> that 
the Latin workers who had been advocating the general strike <i>"as a 
weapon which would irresistible in the hands of labour for imposing its 
will"</i> had been <i>"right.</i>" [<b>Selected Writings on Anarchism 
and Revolution</b>, p. 288] 
</p><p>
So, contra Luxemburg, <i>"the fatherland of Bakunin"</i> was <b>not</b> 
<i>"the burial-place of [anarchism's] teachings."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 157] As Nicholas Walter argued, while the numbers of actual anarchists
was small, <i>"the 1905 Revolution was objectively an anarchist revolution. 
The military mutinies, peasant uprisings and workers' strikes (culminating 
in a general strike), led to the establishment of soldiers' and workers' 
councils . . . and peasants' communes, and the beginning of agrarian and 
industrial expropriation - all along the lines suggested by anarchist 
writers since Bakunin."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Past and Other Essays</b>, 
p. 122] The real question must be when will Marxists realise that quoting 
Engels does not make it true?
</p><p>
Moreover, without becoming an insurrection, as anarchists had stressed, the 
limits of the general strike were exposed in 1905. Unlike the some of the 
syndicalists in the 1890s and 1900s, this limitation was understood by 
the earliest anarchists. Consequently, they saw the general strike as 
the start of a revolution and not as the revolution itself. So, for all 
the Leninist accounts of the 1905 revolution claiming it for their ideology, 
the facts suggest that it was anarchism, not Marxism, which was vindicated 
by it. Luxemburg was wrong. The <i>"land of Bakunin's birth"</i> provided 
an unsurpassed example of how to make a revolution precisely because it 
applied (and confirmed) anarchist ideas on the general strike (and, it
should be added, workers' councils). Marxists (who had previously quoted 
Engels to dismiss such things) found themselves repudiating aspect upon 
aspect of their dogma to remain relevant. Luxemburg, as Bookchin noted, 
<i>"grossly misrepresented the anarchist emphasis on the general strike 
after the 1905 revolution in Russia in order to make it acceptable to 
Social Democracy."</i> (he added that Lenin <i>"was to engage in the same 
misrepresentation on the issue of popular control in <b>State and 
Revolution</b>"</i>). [<b>Towards an Ecological Society</b>, p. 227fn] 
</p><p>
As such, while Marxists have appropriated certain anarchist concepts, 
it does not automatically 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>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 242f]
</p><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><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 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] This
clash between the popular idea of workers' control and the Leninist
one was a key reason for the failure of the Russian Revolution 
precisely because, once in power, the latter was imposed.
</p><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 discussed 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><p>
Equally with examples of actual revolutions. As Martin Buber
noted, 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 pointed 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 (which were usually often 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><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] 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><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 by Leninists 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. 
</p><p>
Significantly, those Marxists who <b>do</b> apply anarchist ideas 
honestly are usually labelled by their orthodox comrades as 
<i>"anarchists."</i> 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><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 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, pp. 202-3] 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><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><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><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><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><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>, pp. 9-10]
</blockquote></p><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>Selected Works</b>,
p. 72] However, as Castoridias 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><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><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>, p. 10]
</blockquote></p><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 direct action <i>"spells liberation for the 
masses of humanity"</i>, it <i>"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>,
p. 3] 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><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><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 argued:
</p><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><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></a>

<p>
Some Marxists will dismiss our arguments, and anarchism, out of 
hand. This is because anarchism has not lead a "successful" 
revolution while Marxism has. The fact, they assert, that there has 
never been a serious anarchist revolutionary  movement, let alone a 
successful 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><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 "successful" 
Marxist movements and revolutions. The fact that there has 
never been a "Marxist" revolution which has not become a 
party dictatorship proves the need to critique Marxism.
</p><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><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 before 1914! In fact, 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! 
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 19, p. 298] 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><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 in Tsarist 
Russia. Moreover, the net result of its seizure of power was, 
first, a party dictatorship and state capitalism under Lenin, 
then their intensification under Stalin and the creation of 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. Given the fate of 
Bolshevism in power, Bookchin simply stated the obviously:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"None of the authoritarian technics of change has provided successful
'paradigms', unless we are prepared to ignore the harsh fact that the 
Russian, Chinese, and Cuban 'revolutions' were massive counterrevolutions
that blight our entire century."</i> [<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 446]
</blockquote></p><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 it is 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><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><p>
Hence the overwhelming need to critically evaluate Marxist 
ideas and history (such as the Russian Revolution - see 
<a href="secH6.html">section H.6</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 (e.g., where 
anarchists have identified, however incompletely, problems 
in Marxism which bear on revolutionary ideas, practice and 
transformation).
</p><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></a>

<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><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><p>
So if the state, as Kropotkin stressed, 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><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><p>
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,
mass 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> [Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, 
p. 23] 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 
<a href="secH1.html#sech14">section H.1.4</a> for further discussion).
</p><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> 
[<b>Selected Works</b>, p. 258, pp. 577-8, p. 528 and p. 424]
</p><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 it 
<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 essence 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><p>
Indeed, at times, Marx seemed to suggest that <b>any</b> form of 
social organisation is a state. At one point he complained that
the French mutualists argued that <i>"[e]verything [was] to
broken down into small '<b>groupes</b>' or '<b>communes</b>', 
which in turn form an 'association', but not a state."</i> 
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 42, p. 287] Unsurprisingly, then,
that Kropotkin noted <i>"the German school which takes pleasure in 
confusing <b>State</b> with <b>Society</b>."</i> This was a <i>"confusion"</i> 
made by those <i>"who cannot visualise Society without a concentration 
of the State."</i> Yet this <i>"is to overlook the fact that Man lived 
in Societies for thousands of years before the State had been 
heard of"</i> and that <i>"communal life"</i> had <i>"been destroyed 
by the State."</i> So <i>"large numbers of people [have] lived in communes 
and free federations"</i> and these were not states as the state <i>"is 
only one of the forms assumed by society in the course of history. Why 
then make no distinction between what is permanent and what is accidental?"</i>
[<b>The State: Its Historic Role</b>, pp. 9-10]
</p><p>
As we discussed in 
<a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a>, anarchist opposition to
the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" 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><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><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>Selected Writings</b>, p. 576]
</blockquote></p><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><p>
In this, the Marxist position concurs with the anarchist. Engels 
discussed the development of numerous ancient societies to prove 
his point. Talking of Greek society, he argued 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> Discussing the descent of this society into 
classes, he argued 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>, pp. 525-6, p. 528 and p. 525] 
</p><p>
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><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><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><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 failed 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
argued 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><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]
</p><p>
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. 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 hypostasis of social 
abstractions."</i> [<i>"The Abolition and Extinction of the 
State,"</i> pp. 50-1, <b>Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review</b>, 
no. 4, p. 50] 
</p><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 argued, 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 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>, pp 51-2, <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><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 of Murray 
Bookchin:
</p><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><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 <a href="secH3.html#sech39">section H.3.9</a>
the state cannot be considered as a neutral instrument of economic 
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 an economically dominant class.
</p><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 stressed, <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>, Dimitrios I.
Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 86] 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 were <i>"contrary to 
their essence."</i> [<b>Statism and Anarchy</b>, p. 13] 
</p><p>
So when Lenin argued 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 argued 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 was 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><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><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. So when Marx argued 
that the conquest of political power had become the great duty 
of the working class because landlords and capitalists always 
make use of their political privileges to defend their economic 
monopolies and enslave labour, he drew the wrong conclusion.
</p><p>
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><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. xif]
</blockquote></p><p>
In practice, this means that any valid social revolution needs
to break the 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 machines 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]). 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, the tribes with <i>"primitive democracy"</i> 
had to defend themselves against their adversaries and so that, in itself, 
does not means that these communities had a state (see 
<a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a>). 
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><p>
This issue is fudged by Marx. When Bakunin, in <i>"Statism and Anarchy"</i>, 
asked the question <i>"Will the entire proletariat head the government?"</i>, 
Marx argued in response:
</p><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><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] Non-anarchists have also noticed the poverty of
Marx's response. For example, as David W. Lovell puts it, <i>"[t]aken 
as a whole, Marx's comments have dodged the issue. Bakunin
is clearly grappling with the problems of Marx's transition period,
in particular the problem of leadership, while Marx refuses to 
discuss the political form of what must be (at least in part)
class rule by the proletariat."</i> [<b>From Marx to Lenin</b>, 
p. 64]
</p><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 argued, <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. This was not, of
course, the desire of Marx and Engels but this result flows from their theory
of the state and its fundamental flaws. These flaws can be best seen from
their repeated assertion that the capitalist democratic state could be
captured via universal suffrage and used to introduce socialism (see 
<a href="secH3.html#sech310">section H.3.10</a>) but it equally applies
to notions of creating new states based on the centralisation of power
favoured by ruling elites since class society began.
</p><p>
As Kropotkin stressed, <i>"one does not make an historical institution 
follow in the direction to which one points - that is in the opposite direction 
to the one it has taken over the centuries."</i> To expect this would be a
<i>"a sad and tragic mistake"</i> simply because <i>"the old machine, the 
old organisation, [was] slowly developed in the course of history to crush freedom, 
to crush the individual, to establish oppression on a legal basis, to create 
monopolists, to lead minds astray by accustoming them to servitude"</i>. 
[<b>The State: Its Historic Role</b>, pp. 57-8] A social revolution needs 
new, non-statist, forms of social organisation to succeed:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"To give full scope to socialism entails rebuilding from top to bottom 
a society dominated by the narrow individualism of the shopkeeper. It 
is not as has sometimes been said by those indulging in metaphysical 
wooliness just a question of giving the worker 'the total product of 
his labour'; it is a question of completely reshaping all relationships 
. . . In ever street, in every hamlet, in every group of men gathered 
around a factory or along a section of the railway line, the creative, 
constructive and organisational spirit must be awakened in order to 
rebuild life - in the factory, in the village, in the store, in 
production and in distribution of supplies. All relations between 
individuals and great centres of population have to be made all over 
again, from the very day, from the very moment one alters the existing 
commercial or administrative organisation.
</p><p>
"And they expect this immense task, requiring the free expression of popular 
genius, to be carried out within the framework of the State and the pyramidal 
organisation which is the essence of the State! They expect the State . . . 
to become the lever for the accomplishment of this immense transformation. 
They want to direct the renewal of a society by means of decrees and electoral 
majorities... How ridiculous!"</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 58-9]
</blockquote></p><p>
</p><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 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 clarified what is at stake:
</p><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><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> In
fact, not only does Marxism open that door, it even invites the state 
<i>"in the proper sense"</i> 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> 
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 23, p. 372] 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><p><blockquote><i>
"since Marx vigorously opposed Bakunin's efforts to ensure that only 
libertarian and decentralist means were employed by revolutionaries
so as to facilitate the revolution remaining in the hands of the
mass of workers, he must accept a fair measure of culpability for
the authoritarian outcome of the Russian Revolution . . .
</p><p>
"Bakunin was not satisfied with trusting revolutionary leaders
to liberate the oppressed . . . The oppressed people had to made
aware that the only security against replacing one repressive
structure with another was the deliberate retaining of control of
the revolution by the whole of the working classes, and not 
naively trusting it to some vanguard."</i> [Alan Carter, <b>Marx: 
A Radical Critique</b> pp. 218-9]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
It is for this reason why anarchists are extremely critical
of Marxist ideas of social revolution. As Alan Carter argues:
</p><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>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 231]
</blockquote></p><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, could only leave their followers 
with a confused legacy and that is what we find.
</p><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></a>

<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><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="secH3.html#secH.3.3">section H.3.3</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 he 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, in turn, 
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). This development 
did not come as a surprise to anarchists, who had 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><p>
As Voline summarised, there is <i>"an explicit, irreconcilable contradiction 
between the very essence of State Socialist power (if it triumphs) and
that of the true Social Revolutionary process."</i> This was
because <i>"<b>the basis of State Socialism</b> and delegated 
power is <b>the explicit non-recognition of [the] principles of 
the Social Revolution.</b> The characteristic traits of Socialist 
ideology and practice . . . do not belong to the future, but are 
wholly a part of the bourgeois past . . . Once this model has
been applied, the true principles of the Revolution are 
fatally abandoned. Then follows, inevitably, the rebirth,
under another name, of the exploitation of the labouring masses,
with all its consequences."</i> Thus <i>"the forward march of the 
revolutionary masses towards real emancipation, towards the 
creation of new forms of social life, is incompatible with the very 
principle of State power . . . the authoritarian principle and the 
revolutionary principle are diametrically opposed and mutually 
exclusive."</i> [<b>The Unknown Revolution</b>, p. 247 and p. 248]
</p><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 state power was <b>not</b> required 
to repress resistance by the ex-ruling class as such, but,
in fact, was also 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><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. The contradiction at the heart of the 
Marxist theory of the state we pointed out in the 
<a href="secH3.html#sech37">section H.3.7</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><p>
Needless to say, his latter day followers 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 in <a href="secH1.html#sech17">section H.1.7</a> 
proved, 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><p>
The 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> 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 Bolshevik leadership were the Soviets able to lift themselves 
out of the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat."</i> 
[<b>Writings 1936-37</b>, p. 490, p. 488 and p. 495] 
</p><p>
Logically, though, this places the party in a privileged position. So 
what happens if the working class no longer supports the vanguard? Who 
takes priority? Unsurprisingly, in both theory and practice, the party is
expected to rule over the masses. This idea that state power was required 
due to the limitations within the working class is reiterated a few years 
later in 1939. Moreover, the whole rationale for party dictatorship came 
from the fundamental rationale for democracy, namely that any government 
should reflect the changing opinions of the masses:
</p><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> [<i>"The Moralists and 
Sycophants against Marxism"</i>, pp. 53-66, <b>Their Morals and Ours</b>, 
p. 59]
</blockquote></p><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.
</p><p>
Thus the possibility of party dictatorship exists if popular support fades. 
Which is, significantly, precisely what <b>had</b> happened when Lenin and 
Trotsky were in power. In fact, these arguments built upon other, equally 
elitist statement which had been expressed by Trotsky when he held the 
reins of power. In 1920, for example, 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: 
</p><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><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 position: <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><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 <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> It was stressed 
that the <i>"dictatorship of the proletariat [sic!] demands as its very 
core a single proletarian party."</i> [<b>The Challenge of the Left 
Opposition (1926-7)</b>, p. 395 and p. 441] As we noted in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a>, ten years later, 
he was still explicitly arguing for the <i>"revolutionary 
dictatorship of a proletarian party"</i>.
</p><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 changing
circumstances, evaluating the results of past decisions, debates 
between different 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><p>
The importance of party power <b>over</b> the working class was not 
limited to Trotsky. It was considered of general validity by all 
leading Bolsheviks and, moreover, quickly became mainstream Bolshevik 
ideology. In March 1923, for example, the Central Committee of the 
Communist Party in a statement issued to mark the 25th anniversary 
of the founding of the Bolshevik Party. This statement summarised the 
lessons gained from the Russian revolution. It stated that <i>"the party 
of the Bolsheviks proved able to stand out fearlessly against the vacillations 
within its own class, vacillations which, with the slightest weakness in the 
vanguard, could turn into an unprecedented defeat for the proletariat."</i> 
Vacillations, of course, are expressed by workers' democracy. Little wonder 
the statement rejects it: <i>"The dictatorship of the working class finds 
its expression in the dictatorship of the party."</i> [<i>"To the Workers 
of the USSR"</i> in G. Zinoviev, <b>History of the Bolshevik Party</b>, 
p. 213 and p. 214]
</p><p>
Trotsky and other leading Bolsheviks were simply following Lenin's lead, 
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 <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> that 
it <i>"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. 20 and p. 21] For Lenin, 
<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><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>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 24, p. 85] While this state 
<i>"in the proper sense"</i> had existed from the start of Bolshevik rule, 
it was only from early 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><p>
So when Lenin stated 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. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
vol. 24, p. 85] 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 (see our discussion of Leninism as <i><b>"socialism
from above"</b></i> in <a href="secH3.html#sech33">section H.3.3</a>
for details).
</p><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 so-called 
<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><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>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 8, p. 279]
</blockquote></p><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> of workers, officials and
party members from above. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 32, p. 62, 
p. 98 and p. 99] Unsurprisingly, these powers were used by 
Lenin, and then Stalin, to destroy opposition (although the 
latter applied coercive measures <b>within</b> the party which
Lenin only applied to non-party opponents). 
</p><p>
So much for <i>"workers' power,"</i> <i>"socialism from below"</i> 
and other such rhetoric. 
</p><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. 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><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><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 power. 
</p><p>
As we indicated in <a href="secH3.html#sech34">section H.3.4</a>, the 
underlying assumption behind this resolution was made clear by 
Zinoviev during his introductory speech to the congress 
meeting which finally agreed the resolution: the dictatorship of 
the party <b>was</b> the dictatorship of the proletariat. Little 
wonder that Bertrand Russell, on his return from Lenin's Russia 
in 1920, wrote that:
<blockquote><i>
"Friends 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 quite 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, whom he classifies as lackeys of the 
<b>bourgeoisie.</b>"</i> [<b>The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism</b>, 
pp. 26-27]
</blockquote>
Significantly, Russell pointed, like Lenin, to the Comintern resolution 
on the role of the Communist Party. In addition, he noted 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>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 40-1]
</p><p>
Nor are followers of Bolshevism shy in repeating its elitist 
conclusions. Founder and leader of the British SWP, 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 in direct 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 football 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>! And 
need we speculate who the paternalistic <i>"captain"</i> in charge 
of the ship of the state would be?
</p><p>
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> (unless, of course, he is analysing Stalin's regime rather
than Lenin's then it becomes of critical importance!). 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 for 
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><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 leaders 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><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 showed that his claim that <i>"[a]t the head"</i> of
the <i>"dictatorship of the proletarian majority . . . stand
the masses"</i> is 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> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 1, 
p. 371-2] The fundamental flaw in Leninism is that it confuses 
the two and so lays the ground for the very result anarchists 
predicted and Stalin denied. 
</p><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. 
</p><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. 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) from the Russian
Revolution 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></a>

<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> <i>"At a certain stage 
of economic development"</i>, Engels stressed, <i>"which was necessarily
bound up with the split in society into classes, the state became
a necessity owning to this split."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>, 
pp. 577-8, p. 579 and p. 258] For Lenin, this was <i>"the 
basic idea of Marxism on the question of the historical role and 
meaning of the state,"</i> namely that <i>"the state is an organ of
class <b>rule</b>, the organ for the <b>oppression</b> of one
class by another."</i> [<b>Essential Works of Lenin</b>, p. 273 
and p. 274]
</p><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 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><p>
For anarchists, this position is a fundamental weakness 
of Marxism, a sign that the mainstream Marxist position 
significantly misunderstands the nature of the state and 
the needs of social revolution. However, we must stress
that anarchists would agree that the 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] 
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, 
as we discussed in <a href="secB2.html#secb25">section B.2.5</a>,
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><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. 36]
</blockquote></p><p>
The Bolshevik regime during the Russia revolution proved the 
validity of this analysis. The Bolsheviks seized power in the
name of the soviets yet soon marginalised, gerrymandered and 
disbanded them to remain in power while imposing a vision of 
socialism (more correctly, state capitalism) at odds with 
popular aspirations.
</p><p>
Why this would be the case 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><p>
This would not fundamentally change in a new "workers' state" as 
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><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. 47]
</p><p>
This process 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>, p. 90] 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 the local scale of the 
institutions involved). As we discuss in 
<a href="secH6.html">section H.6</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><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><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><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 economic 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><p>
As regards anthropology, Michael Taylor summarises that the 
<i>"evidence does not give [the Marxist] proposition [that the 
rise of economic 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><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><p>
Taylor 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><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><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><p>
As regards more recent human history, there have been numerous 
examples of the state existing without being an instrument of 
(economic) class rule. Rather, the state <b>was</b> the ruling 
class. While the most obvious example is the Stalinist regimes 
where the state bureaucracy ruled over a state capitalist economy, 
there have been plenty of others, as Murray Bookchin pointed out:
</p><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><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><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><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 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><p>
Marx's <i>"implicit theory of the state - a theory which, in reducing 
political power to the realisation of the interests of the dominant 
economic classes, precludes any concern with the potentially 
authoritarian and oppressive outcome of authoritarian and centralised 
revolutionary methods . . . This danger (namely, the dismissal of 
warranted fears concerning political power) is latent in the central 
features of Marx's approach to politics."</i> [Alan Carter, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 219] To summarise the obvious conclusion:
</p><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>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 231]
</blockquote></p><p>
Many factors contributed to Stalinism, including Marxism's defective
theory of the state. In stressing that socialism meant nationalising
property, it lead to state management which, in turn, expropriated the
working class as a vast managerial bureaucracy was required to run it.
Moreover, Marxism disguised this new ruling class as it argues that the
state 'represents' a class and had no interests of itself. Thus we have
Trotsky's utter inability to understand Stalinism and his insane formula
that the proletariat remained the ruling class under Stalin (or, for that
matter, under himself and Lenin)! Simply put, by arguing that the state
was an instrument of class rule, Marxism ensured it presented a false 
theory of social change and could not analysis its resulting class rule 
when the inevitable consequences of this approach was implemented.
</p><p>
However, there is more to Marxism than its dominant theory of the state.
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 rule 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>Selected Works</b>, p. 257] 
Yet, if the state was simply an instrument of class rule such precautions 
would not be necessary. Engels comments show an awareness that the state 
can have interests of its own, that it is not simply a machine of class 
rule. 
</p><p>
Aware of the obvious contradiction, Engels argued 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> 
He pointed to the <i>"absolute monarchy of the seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries"</i>, which held the balance between the nobility and the bourgeoisie 
against one another as well as <i>"the Bonapartism of the First, and still 
more of the Second French Empire."</i> It should be noted that, elsewhere, 
Engels was more precise on how long the state was, in fact, controlled by 
the bourgeoisie, namely two years: <i>"In France, where the bourgeoisie as 
such, as a class in its entirety, held power for only two years, 1849 and 
1850, under the republic, it was able to continue its social existence only 
by abdicating its political power to Louis Bonaparte and the army."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 577-8 and p. 238] So, in terms of French history, 
Engels argued that <i>"by way of exception"</i> accounted for over 250 
hundred years, the 17th and 18th centuries and most of the 19th, bar a
two year period! Even if we are generous and argue that the 1830 revolution
placed one section of the bourgeoisie (finance capital) into political power,
we are still left with over 200 hundred years of state "independence" from 
classes! Given this, it would be fair to suggest that the "exception" should 
be when it <b>is</b> an instrument of class rule, not when it is not! 
</p><p>
This was no isolated case. In Prussia <i>"members of the bourgeoisie have a 
majority in the Chamber . . . But where is their power over the state? . . . 
the mass of the bourgeoisie . . . does not <b>want</b> to rule."</i> [<b>Op. 
Cit.</b>, pp. 236-7] And so, in Germany, there exists <i>"alongside the basic 
condition of the old absolute monarchy - an equilibrium between the landowner 
aristocracy and the bourgeoisie - the basic condition of modern Bonapartism - 
an equilibrium between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat."</i> This meant 
that <i>"both in the old absolute monarchy and in the modern Bonapartist 
monarchy the real government power lies in the hands of a special caste of 
army officers and state officials"</i> and so the <i>"independence of this 
case, which appears to occupy a position outside and, so to speak, above society, 
gives the state the semblance of independence in relation to society."</i> 
However, this did not stop Engels asserting that the <i>"state is nothing but 
the organised collective power of the exploiting classes, the landlords and the 
capitalists as against the exploited classes, the peasants and the workers. What 
the individual capitalists . . . do not want, their state also does not want."</i> 
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 23, p. 363 and p. 362]
</p><p>
So, according to Engels, the executive of the state, like the state itself, can
become independent from classes if the opposing classes were balanced. This analysis,
it must be pointed out, was an improvement on the earliest assertions of Marx and 
Engels on the state. In the 1840s, it was a case of the <i>"independence of the 
state is only found nowadays in those countries where the estates have not yet 
completely developed into classes . . . where consequently no section of the 
population can achieve dominance over the others."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 5,
p. 90] For Engels, <i>"[f]rom the moment the state administration and legislature 
fall under the control of the bourgeoisie, the independence of the bureaucracy 
ceases to exist."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 6, p. 88] It must, therefore, have 
come as a surprise for Marx and Engels when the state and its bureaucracy 
appeared to become independent in France under Napoleon III.
</p><p>
Talking of which, it should be noted that, initially for Marx, under Bonapartism
<i>"the state power is not suspended in mid air. Bonaparte represents a class,
and the most numerous class of French society at that, the <b>small-holding 
[Parzellen] peasants</b>."</i> The Bonaparte <i>"who dispersed the bourgeois 
parliament is the chosen of the peasantry."</i> However, this class is 
<i>"incapable of enforcing their class interests in their own name . . . They
cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must
at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, as an unlimited
governmental power . . . The political influence of the small-holding peasants,
therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power subordinating 
society to itself."</i> Yet Marx himself admits that this regime experienced
<i>"peasant risings in half of France"</i>, organised <i>"raids on the 
peasants by the army"</i> and the <i>"mass incarceration and transportation of
peasants."</i> A strange form of class rule, when the class represented is
oppressed by the regime! Rest assured, though, the <i>"Bonaparte dynasty
represents not the revolutionary, but the conservative peasant."</i> Then Marx,
without comment, pronounced Bonaparte to be <i>"the representative of the 
<b>lumpenproletariat</b> to which he himself, his entourage, his government 
and his army belong."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>, p. 170, p. 171 
and p. 176]
</p><p>
It would be fair to say that Marx's analysis is somewhat confused and seems 
an ad hoc explanation to the fact that in a modern society the state appeared
to become independent of the economically dominant class. Yet if a regime is 
systematically oppressing a class then it is fair to conclude that is <b>not</b> 
representing that class in any way. Bonaparte's power did not, in other words, 
rest on the peasantry. Rather, like fascism, it was a means by which the 
bourgeoisie could break the power of the working class and secure its own class 
position against possible social revolution. As Bakunin argued, it was a 
<i>"despotic imperial system"</i> which the bourgeois <i>"themselves founded 
out of fear of the Social Revolution."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 63] 
Thus the abolition of bourgeois rule was more apparent than real:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"As soon as the people took equality and liberty seriously, the bourgeoisie 
. . . retreated into reaction . . . They began by suppressing universal suffrage 
. . . The fear of Social Revolution . . . . hurled this downfallen class . . . 
into the arms of the dictatorship of Napoleon III . . . We should not think 
that the Bourgeois Gentlemen were too inconvenienced . . . [Those who] applied 
themselves earnestly and exclusively to the great concern of the bourgeoisie, 
the exploitation of the people . . . were well protected and powerfully 
supported . . . All went well, according to the desires of the bourgeoisie."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 62-3]
</p><p></blockquote>
Somewhat ironically, then, a key example used by Marxists for the "independence" 
of the state is no such thing. Bonapartism did not represent a "balance" between 
the proletariat and bourgeoisie but rather the most naked form of state rule 
required in the fact of working class revolt. It was a counter-revolutionary 
regime which reflected a defeat for the working class, not a "balance" between 
it and the capitalist class. 
</p><p>
Marx's confusions arose from his belief that, for the bourgeoisie, the 
parliamentary republic <i>"was the unavoidable condition of their 
<b>common</b> rule, the sole form of state in which their general 
class interest subjected itself at the same time both the claims of 
their particular factions and all the remaining classes of society."</i> 
[<b>Selected Works</b>, pp. 152-3] The abolition of the republic, the
replacement of the government, was, for him, the end of the political 
rule of the bourgeoisie as he argued that <i>"the industrial bourgeoisie 
applauds with servile bravos the <b>coup dtat</b> of December 2, the 
annihilation of parliament, the downfall of its own rule, the dictatorship 
of Bonaparte."</i> He repeated this identification: <i>"Passing of the 
parliamentary regime and of bourgeois rule. Victory of Bonaparte."</i> 
[<b>Selected Writings</b>, pp. 164-5 and p. 166] Political rule was 
equated to which party held power and so, logically, universal suffrage 
was <i>"the equivalent of political power for the working class . . . 
where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population."</i> 
Its <i>"inevitable result</i> would be <i>"<b>the political supremacy of 
the working class</b>."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 11, pp. 335-6] 
This was, of course, simply wrong (on both counts) as he, himself, 
seemed to became aware of two decades later. 
</p><p>
In 1871 he argued that <i>"the State power assumed more and more the 
character of the national power of capital over labour, of a public force 
organised for social enslavement, of an engine of class despotism."</i> 
This meant that <i>"in view of the threatened upheaval of the proletariat, 
[the bourgeoisie] now used that State power mercilessly and ostentatiously 
as the national war-engine of capital against labour"</i> and so were 
<i>"bound not only to invest the executive with continually increased 
powers of repression, but at the same time to divest their own parliamentary 
stronghold . . . of all its own means of defence against the Executive. The 
Executive, in the person of Louis Bonaparte, turned them out."</i> Marx 
now admitted that this regime only <i>"professed to rest upon the peasantry"</i> 
while, <i>"[i]n reality, it was the only form of government possible at a 
time when the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not 
yet acquired, the faculty of ruling the nation."</i> However, <i>"[u]nder 
its sway, bourgeois society, freed from political cares, attained a 
development unexpected even by itself."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>, p. 285, 
p. 286, pp. 286-7 and p. 287] 
</p><p>
Yet capitalists often do well under regimes which suppress the basic 
liberties of the working class and so the bourgeoisie remained the 
ruling class and the state remained its organ. In other words, there 
is no "balance" between classes under Bonapartism even if the political 
regime is not subject to electoral control by the bourgeoisie and has 
more independence to pursue its own agenda.
</p><p>
This is not the only confirmation of the anarchist critique of the Marxist
theory of the state which can be found in Marxism itself. Marx, at times, also 
admitted the possibility of the state <b>not</b> being an instrument of 
(economic) class rule. For example, he mentioned the so-called <i><b>"Asiatic 
Mode of Production"</b></i> in which <i>"there are no private landowners"</i> 
but rather <i>"the state . . . which confronts"</i> the peasants <i>"directly
as simultaneously landowner and sovereign, rent and tax coincide . . . Here 
the state is the supreme landlord. Sovereignty here is landed property 
concentrated on a national scale."</i> [<b>Capital</b>, vol. 3, p. 927]
Thus <i>"the State [is] the real landlord"</i> in the <i>"Asiatic system"</i> 
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 12, p. 215] In other words, the ruling class
could be a state bureaucracy and so be independent of economic classes. 
Unfortunately this analysis remained woefully undeveloped and no conclusions 
were drawn from these few comments, perhaps unsurprisingly as it undermines the 
claim that the state is merely the instrument of the economically dominant 
class. It also, of course, has applicability to state socialism and certain 
conclusions could be reached that suggested it, as Bakunin warned, would be 
a new form of class rule.
</p><p>
The state bureaucracy as the ruling class can be seen in Soviet Russia (and 
the other so-called "socialist" regimes such as China and Cuba). As libertarian 
socialist Ante Ciliga put it, <i>"the manner in which Lenin organised industry 
had handed it over entirely into the hands of the bureaucracy,"</i> and so the 
workers <i>"became once more the wage-earning manpower in other people's factories. 
Of socialism there remained in Russia no more than the word."</i> [<b>The Russian 
Enigma</b>, p. 280 and p. 286] Capitalism became state capitalism under Lenin and 
Trotsky and so the state, as Bakunin predicted and feared, became the new ruling 
class under Marxism (see <a href="secH3.html#sech314">section H.3.14</a> for more 
discussion of this).
</p><p>
The confusions of the Marxist theory of the state ensured that Trotsky, for 
example, failed to recognise the obvious, namely that the Stalinist state 
bureaucracy was a ruling class. Rather, it was the <i>"new ruling caste"</i>,
or <i>"the ruling stratum"</i>. While admitting, at one stage, that the 
<i>"transfer of the factories to the State changed the situation of the 
workers only juridically"</i> Trotsky then ignored the obvious conclusion 
that this has left the working class as an exploited class under a (new) 
form of capitalism to assert that the <i>"nature"</i> of Stalinist Russia 
was <i>"a proletarian State"</i> because of its <i>"nationalisation"</i> of 
the means of life (which <i>"constitute the basis of the Soviet social 
structure"</i>). He admitted that the <i>"Soviet Bureaucracy has expropriated 
the proletariat politically"</i> but has done so <i>"in order by methods of 
<b>its own</b> to defend the social conquests"</i> of the October Revolution. 
He did not ponder too deeply the implications of admitting that the <i>"means 
of production belong to the State. But the State, so to speak, 'belongs' to 
the bureaucracy."</i> [<b>The Revolution Betrayed</b>, p. 93, p. 136, p. 228, 
p. 235 and p. 236] If that is so, only ideology can stop the obvious confusion 
being drawn, namely that the state bureaucracy was the ruling class. But that 
is precisely what happened with Trotsky's confusion 
expressing itself thusly: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"In no other regime has a bureaucracy ever achieved such a degree of independence 
from the dominating class . . . it is something more than a bureaucracy. It is in 
the full sense of the word the sole privileged and commanding stratum in the Soviet 
society."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 235]
</blockquote></p><p>
By this, Trotsky suggested that the working class was the <i>"dominating class"</i> 
under Stalinism! In fact, the bureaucracy <i>"continues to preserve State property 
only to the extent it fears the proletariat"</i> while, at the same time, the 
bureaucracy has <i>"become [society's] lord"</i> and <i>"the Soviet state has 
acquired a totalitarian-bureaucratic character"</i>! This nonsense is understandable,
given the unwillingness to draw the obvious conclusion from the fact that the 
bureaucracy was <i>"compelled to defend State property as the source of its power 
and its income. In this aspect of its activity it still remains a weapon of 
proletarian dictatorship."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 112, p. 107,  p. 238 and 
p. 236] By commanding nationalised property, the bureaucracy, like private 
capitalists, could exploit the labour of the working class and did. That the 
state owned the means of production did not stop this being a form of class system. 
</p><p>
It is simply nonsense to claim, as Trotsky did, that the <i>"anatomy of 
society is determined by its economic relations. So long as the forms of property 
that have been created by the October Revolution are not overthrown, the proletariat 
remains the ruling class."</i> [<b>Writings of Leon Trotsky 1933-34</b>, p. 125] 
How could the proletariat be the <i>"ruling class"</i> if it were under the heel 
of a totalitarian dictatorship? State ownership of property was precisely the means 
by which the bureaucracy enforced its control over production and so the source of 
its economic power and privileges. To state the obvious, if the working class does 
not control the property it is claimed to own then someone else does. The economic 
relationship thus generated is a hierarchical one, in which the working class is 
an oppressed class. 
</p><p>
Significantly, Trotsky combated those of his followers who drew the same conclusions 
as had anarchists and libertarian Marxists while he and Lenin held the reigns of power. 
Perhaps this ideological blindness is understandable, given Trotsky's key role in 
creating the bureaucracy in the first place. So Trotsky did criticise, if in a 
confused manner, the Stalinist regime for its <i>"injustice, oppression, differential 
consumption, and so on, even if he had supported them when he himself was in the elite."</i> 
[Neil C. Fernandez, <b>Capitalism and Class Struggle in the USSR</b>, p. 180]). Then 
there is the awkward conclusion that if the bureaucracy were a ruling class under 
Stalin then Russia was also state capitalist under Lenin and Trotsky for the economic 
relations were identical in both (this obvious conclusion haunts those, like the 
British SWP, who maintain that Stalinism was State Capitalist but not Bolshevism - 
see <a href="secH3.html#sech313">section H.3.13</a>). Suffice to say, if the state 
itself can be the "economically dominant class" then the state cannot be a mere 
instrument of an economic class.
</p><p>
Moreover, Engels also presented another analysis of the state which suggested
that it arose <b>before</b> economic classes appeared. In 1886 he wrote of
how society <i>"creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its common 
interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. 
Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent <b>vis--vis</b> 
society: and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular 
class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class."</i> 
<i>"Society",</i> he argued four years later, <i>"gives rise to certain common 
function which it cannot dispense with. The persons appointed for this purpose 
form a new branch of the division of labour <b>within society</b>. This gives 
them particular interests, distinct, too, from the interests of those who 
empowered them; they make themselves independent of the latter and - the state 
is in being."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 617 and pp. 685-6] In this schema, the 
independence of the state comes <b>first</b> and is then captured by rising 
economically powerful class.
</p><p>
Regardless of when and how the state arises, the key thing is that 
Engels recognised that the state was <i>"endowed with relative 
independence."</i> Rather than being a simple expression of economic 
classes and their interests, this <i>"new independent power, while 
having in the main to follow the movement of production, reacts in 
its turn, by virtue of its inherent relative independence - that is, 
the relative independence once transferred to it and gradually further 
developed - upon the conditions and course of production. It is the 
interaction of two unequal forces: on the one hand, the economic 
movement, on the other, the new political power, which strives for 
as much independence as possible, and which, having once been 
established, is endowed with a movement of its own."</i> There were 
three types of <i>"reaction of the state power upon economic development."</i> 
The state can act <i>"in the same direction"</i> and then it is <i>"more 
rapid"</i> or it can <i>"oppose"</i> it and <i>"can do great damage to 
the economic development."</i> Finally, it can <i>"prevent the economic 
development proceeding along certain lines, and prescribe other lines."</i> 
Finally he stated <i>"why do we fight for the political dictatorship 
of the proletariat if political power is economically impotent? Force 
(that is, state power) is also an economic power!"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 686 and  p. 689] 
</p><p>
Conversely, anarchists reply, why fight for <i>"the political dictatorship 
of the proletariat"</i> when you yourself admit that the state can become 
<i>"independent"</i> of the classes you claim it represents? Particularly
when you <b>increase</b> its potential for becoming independent by centralising 
it even more and giving it economic powers to complement its political ones!
</p><p>
So the Marxist theory of the state is that is an instrument of class rule - 
except when it is not. Its origins lie in the rise of class antagonisms - 
except when it does not. It arises after the break up of society into classes - 
except when it does not. Which means, of course, the state is <b>not</b> 
just an instrument of class rule and, correspondingly, the anarchist critique 
is confirmed. This explains why the analysis of the <i>"Asiatic Mode of 
Production"</i> is so woefully underdeveloped in Marx and Engels as well 
as the confused and contradictory attempt to understand Bonapartism. 
</p><p>
To summarise, if the state can become <i>"independent"</i> of economic 
classes or even exist without an economically dominant class, 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] Thus <i>"the state certainly has 
interests of its own . . . [,] acts to protect [them] . . . and 
protects the interests of the bourgeoisie when these interests happen 
to coincide with its own, as, indeed, they usually do."</i> [Carter, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 226]
</p><p>
As Mark Leier quips, Marxism <i>"has usually - save when battling anarchists - 
argued that the state has some 'relative autonomy' and is not a direct, simple 
reflex of a given economic system."</i> [<b>Bakunin: The Constructive Passion</b>, 
p. 275] The reason why the more sophisticated Marxist analysis of the state is 
forgotten when it comes to attacking anarchism should be obvious - it undermines 
the both the Marxist critique of anarchism and its own theory of the state.
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. They suggest 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></a>

<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><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>, 
pp. 3-82, <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><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> [<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><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] Before then, Marxists had held the
position, to quote Karl Kautsky from 1909 (who is, in turn, quoting 
his own words from 1893), that the democratic republic <i>"was 
the particular form of government in which alone socialism can be 
realised."</i> He added, after the Russian Revolution, that <i>"not 
a single Marxist revolutionary repudiated me, neither Rosa Luxemburg
nor Klara Zetkin, neither Lenin nor Trotsky."</i> [<b>The Road to 
Power</b>, p. 34 and p. xlviii] 
</p><p>
Lenin himself, even after Social Democracy supported their respective 
states in the First World War and before his return to Russia, still 
argued that Kautsky's work contained <i>"a most complete exposition of 
the tasks of our times"</i> and <i>"it was most advantageous to the 
German Social-Democrats (in the sense of the promise they held out), 
and moreover came from the pen of the most eminent writer of the Second 
International . . . Social-Democracy . . . wants conquest of political 
power by the proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat."</i> 
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 21, p. 94] There was no hint that Marxism 
stood for anything other than seizing power in a republic, as expounded 
by the likes of Kautsky. 
</p><p>
Before continuing it should be stressed that Harman's summary
is correct only if we are talking about the Marxist movement.
Looking at the wider revolutionary movement, two groups definitely 
recognised the importance of the soviets as a form of working class 
power and as the framework of a socialist society. 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"</i> Lenin 
<i>"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] 
</p><p>
So 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 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. 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 non-party mass organisation - to the central 
committee of the Paris Commune of 1871."</i> [Paul Avrich, 
<b>The Russian Anarchists</b>, pp. 80-1] In 1907, it was 
concluded that the revolution required <i>"the proclamation 
in villages and towns of workers' communes with soviets of 
workers' deputies . . . at their head."</i> [quoted by Alexandre 
Skirda, <b>Facing the Enemy</b>, p. 77] These ideas can be traced 
back to Bakunin, so, ironically, the idea of the superiority of 
workers' councils <b>has</b> existed from around the time of the 
Paris Commune, but only in anarchist theory. 
</p><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 means to 
socialism is in keeping with the <b>spirit</b> of Marx is 
another matter of course. For the <b>Socialist Party of Great
Britain</b> and its sister parties, Lenin violated both the letter
<b>and</b> the spirit of Marx and they stress his arguments in
favour of utilising universal suffrage to introduce socialism
(indeed, their analysis of Marx and critique of Lenin is 
substantially the same as the one presented here). For the 
council communists, who embraced the idea of workers' councils 
but broke with the Bolsheviks over the issue of whether the 
councils or the party had power, Lenin's analysis, while flawed 
in parts, is in the general spirit of Marx and they stress the 
need to smash the state and replace it with workers' councils. 
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><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 republican
state and, after making suitable modifications to it, use it
to create socialism. 
</p><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 April 1883 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 notes that the anarchists <i>"reverse
the matter"</i> by advocating 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 <b>ready-made</b> 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> [our emphasis, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 47, p. 10] 
</p><p>
Obviously the only institution which the working class <i>"finds 
ready-made for use"</i> is the democratic (i.e., bourgeois) state, 
although, as Engels stressed, it <i>"may require adaptation."</i> In 
Engels' 1871 introduction to Marx's <i>"The Civil War in France"</i>,
this analysis is repeated when Engels asserted that the state <i>"is 
nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another"</i> 
and 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>Selected Works</b>, 
p. 258] 
</p><p>
If the proletariat creates a <b>new</b> state to replace the 
bourgeois one, then how can it be <i>"ready-made for use"</i> and 
<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><p>
Three years later, Engels made his position clear: <i>"With respect 
to the proletariat the republic differs from the monarchy only in 
that it is the <b>ready-for-use</b> form for the future rule of the 
proletariat."</i> He went on to state that the French socialists 
<i>"are at an advantage compared to us in already having it"</i> and 
warned against <i>"baseless"</i> illusions such as seeking to <i>"entrust 
socialist tasks to it while it is dominated by the bourgeoisie."</i> 
[Marx and Engels, <b>The Socialist Revolution</b>, p. 296] This was, 
significantly, simply repeating Engels 1891 argument from his critique 
of the draft of the Erfurt program of the German Social Democrats:
</p><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> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 27, p. 227]
</blockquote></p><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. 
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, when Lenin came to quote this passage in <b>State 
and Revolution</b> he immediately tried to obscure its meaning. 
<i>"Engels,"</i> he wrote, <i>"repeated here in a particularly striking 
form the fundamental idea which runs through all of Marx's work, namely, 
that the democratic republic is the nearest approach to the dictatorship 
of the proletariat."</i> [<b>The Lenin Anthology</b>, p. 360] However, 
obviously Engels did nothing of the kind. He did not speak of the political 
form which <i>"is the nearest approach"</i> to the dictatorship, rather 
he wrote 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. 
Hal Draper, likewise, denied that Engels meant what he clearly wrote,
arguing that he <b>really</b> meant the Paris Commune. <i>"Because of 
the expression 'great French revolution,'"</i> Draper asserted, 
<i>"the assumption has often been made that Engels meant the French 
Revolution of 1789; but the idea that he, or anyone else, could 
view 1789 (or 1793) as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is too 
absurd to entertain."</i> [<b>The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' 
from Marx to Lenin</b>, p. 37fn] 
</p><p>
Yet, contextually, no evidence exists to support such a claim and what 
does disputes it - Engels discusses French history and makes no mention 
of the Commune but <b>does</b> mention the republic of 1792 to 1799 
(significantly, Lenin makes no attempt to suggest that Engels meant 
the Paris Commune or anything else bar a democratic republic). In 
fact, Engels goes on to argue that <i>"[f]rom 1792 to 1799 each 
French department, each commune, enjoyed complete self-government 
on the American model, and this is what we too must have. How 
self-government is to be organised and how we can manage without 
a bureaucracy has been shown to us by America and the first French 
Republic."</i> Significantly, Engels was explicitly discussing 
the need for a <i>"republican party programme"</i>, commenting that 
it would be impossible for <i>"our best people to become ministers"</i> 
under an Emperor and arguing that, in Germany at the time, they could 
not call for a republic and had to raise the <i>"demand for <b>the 
concentration of all political power in the hands of the people's 
representatives</b>."</i> Engels stressed that <i>"the proletariat 
can only use the form of the one and indivisible republic"</i> with 
<i>"self-government"</i> meaning <i>"officials elected by universal 
suffrage"</i>. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 227-9] 
</p><p>
Clearly, the <i>"assumption"</i> Draper denounced makes more sense than 
his own or Lenin's. This is particularly the case when it is clear that
both Marx and Engels viewed the French Republic under the Jacobins as
a situation where the proletariat held political power (although, like 
Marx with the Paris Commune, they do not use the term "dictatorship of 
the proletariat" to describe it). Engels wrote of <i>"the rule of the
Mountain party"</i> as being <i>"the short time when the proletariat was 
at the helm of the state in the French Revolution"</i> and <i>"from
May 31, 1793 to July 26, 1794 . . . not a single bourgeois dared show
his face in the whole of France."</i> Marx, similarly, wrote of this period 
as one in which <i>"the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the 
bourgeoisie"</i> but due to the <i>"material conditions"</i> its acts were 
<i>"in service"</i> of the bourgeois revolution. The <i>"bloody action of 
the people"</i> only <i>"prepared the way for"</i> the bourgeoisie by 
destroying feudalism, something which the bourgeoisie was not capable of. 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 6, p. 373, p. 5 and p. 319] 
</p><p>
Apparently Engels did <b>not</b> consider it <i>"too absurd to entertain"</i> 
that the French Republic of 1793 was <i>"a 'dictatorship of the 
proletariat'"</i> and, ironically, Draper's <i>"anyone else"</i> turned 
out to be Marx! Moreover, this was well known in Marxist circles long before
Draper made his assertion. Julius Martov (for example) after quoting Marx on
this issue summarised that, for Marx and Engels, the <i>"Reign of Terror 
in France was the momentary domination of the democratic petty bourgeoisie 
and the proletariat over all the possessing classes, including the authentic 
bourgeoisie."</i> [<b>The State and Socialist Revolution</b>, p. 51] 
</p><p>
Similarly, Lenin quoted Engels on the proletariat seizing <i>"state power"</i> 
and nationalising the means of production, an act by which it <i>"abolishes 
itself as proletariat"</i> <b>and</b> <i>"abolishes the state as state."</i> 
Significantly, it is <b>Lenin</b> who has to write that <i>"Engels speaks 
here of the proletarian revolution 'abolishing' the <b>bourgeois</b> state, 
while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of 
the <b>proletariat</b> state <b>after</b> the socialist revolution."</i> 
Yet Engels himself makes no such differentiation and talks purely of 
<i>"the state"</i> and it <i>"becom[ing] the real representative of 
the whole of society"</i> by <i>"taking possession of the means of 
production in the name of society."</i> Perhaps Lenin was right and Engels 
really meant two different states but, sadly, he failed to make that point 
explicitly, so allowing Marxism, to use Lenin's words, to be subjected to
<i>"the crudest distortion"</i> by its followers, <i>"prune[d]"</i> and
<i>"reduc[ed] . . .  to opportunism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 320-2] 
</p><p>
Then there are 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 and Engels, <b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 26, p. 435 and 
p. 437] Significantly, 40 years previously in 1847, Engels had argued 
that the revolution <i>"will establish a <b>democratic constitution</b>, 
and through this, the direct . . . dominance of the proletariat"</i> where 
<i>"the proletarians are already a majority of the people."</i> He noted 
that <i>"a democratic constitution has been introduced"</i> in America.
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 6, p. 350 and p. 356] The continuity is significant,
particularly as these identical arguments come before and after the Paris
Commune of 1871.
</p><p>
This was no isolated statement. Engels had argued along the same lines 
(and, likewise, echoed early statements) as regards Britain in 1881, 
<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>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 24, p. 405] For Engels:
</p><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>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 386]
</blockquote></p><p>
The 1st of May, 1893, saw Engels argue that the task of the British working 
class was not only to pursue economic struggles <i>"but above all in 
winning political rights, parliament, through the working class 
organised into an independent party"</i> (significantly, the original 
manuscript stated <i>"but in winning parliament, the political power"</i>). 
He went on to state that the 1892 general election saw the workers 
give a <i>"taste of their power, hitherto unexerted."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
vol. 27, p. 395] This, significantly, is in line with his 1870 comment 
that in Britain <i>"the bourgeoisie could only get its real representative 
. . . into government only by extension of the franchise, whose 
consequences are bound to put an end to all bourgeois rule."</i> 
[<b>Selected Works</b>, p. 238] 
</p><p>
Marx seems to see voting for a government as being the same as political 
power as the <i>"fundamental contradiction"</i> of a democracy under 
capitalism is that the classes <i>"whose social slavery the constitution 
is to perpetuate"</i> it <i>"puts in possession of political power through 
universal suffrage."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 10, p. 79] For Engels 
in 1847, <i>"democracy has as its necessary consequence the political rule of 
the proletariat."</i> Universal suffrage would <i>"make political power pass 
from the middle class to the working class"</i> and so <i>"the democratic 
movement"</i> is <i>"striving for the political domination of the proletariat."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 7, p. 299, p. 440 and p. 368] As noted in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech39">section H.3.9</a>, Marx concluded that Bonaparte's
coup ended the political power of the bourgeoisie and, for Engels, <i>"the whole
bourgeoisie ruled, but for three years only"</i> during the Second French 
Republic of 1848-51. Significantly, during the previous regime of Louis-Philippe
(1830-48) <i>"a very small portion of the bourgeois ruled the kingdom"</i>
as <i>"by far the larger part were excluded from the suffrage by high 
[property] qualifications."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 27, p. 297]
</p><p>
All of which, of course, fits into Marx's account of the Paris 
Commune where, as noted above, the Commune <i>"was formed of 
the municipal councillors"</i> who had been <i>"chosen by universal 
suffrage in the various wards of the town"</i> in the municipal 
elections held on March 26th, 1871. Once voted into office, the 
Commune then smashed the state machine inherited by it, 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>Selected Works</b>, p. 287, 
p. 285, p. 287 and p. 285] Indeed, this is precisely what <b>was</b> 
meant, as confirmed by Engels in a letter written in 1884 clarifying 
what Marx meant: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"It is simply a question of showing that the victorious proletariat must 
first refashion the old bureaucratic, administrative centralised state 
power before it can use it for its own purposes: whereas all bourgeois 
republicans since 1848 inveighed against this machinery so long as they 
were in the opposition, but once they were in the government they took it 
over without altering it and used it partly against the reaction but still 
more against the proletariat."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 47, p. 74]
</blockquote></p><p>
Interestingly, in the second outline of the <b>Civil War in France</b>, Marx 
used words almost identical to Engels latter explanation:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"But the proletariat cannot, as the ruling classes and their different 
rival fractions have done in the successive hours of their triumph, simply 
lay hold on the existent State body and wield this ready-made agency for 
their own purpose. The first condition for the holding of political power, 
is to <b>transform its working machinery</b> and destroy it as an instrument 
of class rule."</i> [our emphasis, <b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 22, p. 533]
</blockquote></p><p>
It is, of course, true that Marx expressed 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>Selected Works</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 republic itself. 
</p><p>
In other words, Lenin was right to state that <i>"Marx's idea is that the 
working class must <b>break up, smash</b> the 'ready-made state machinery,' 
and not confine itself to merely laying hold of it."</i> This was never
denied by thinkers like Karl Kautsky, rather they stressed that for Marx
and Engels universal suffrage was the means by which political power would
be seized (at least in a republic) while violent revolution would be the
means to create a republic and to defend it against attempts to restore
the old order. As Engels put it in 1886, Marx had drawn <i>"the conclusion 
that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable 
social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. 
He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling 
classes to submit, without a 'pro-slavery rebellion,' to this peaceful and 
legal revolution."</i> [<i>"Preface to the English edition"</i> in Marx,
<b>Capital</b>, vol. 1, p. 113] Thus Kautsky stressed that the abolition 
of the standing army was <i>"absolutely necessary if the state is to be 
able to carry out significant social reforms"</i> once the party of the 
proletariat was in a position to <i>"control legislation."</i> This would 
mean <i>"the most complete democracy, a militia system"</i> after, echoing 
the <b>Communist Manifesto</b>, <i>"the conquest of democracy"</i> had been 
achieved. [<b>The Road to Power</b>, p. 69, p. 70 and p. 72]
</p><p>
Essentially, then, Lenin was utilising a confusion between smashing the 
state and smashing the state machine once the workers' party had achieved 
a majority within a democratic republic. In other words, Lenin was wrong 
to assert that <i>"this lesson . . . had not only been completely ignored, 
but positively distorted by the prevailing, Kautskyite, 'interpretation' of 
Marxism."</i> As we have proved <i>"the false notion that universal suffrage 
'in the <b>present-day</b> state' is really capable of revealing the will of 
the majority of the working people and of securing its realisation"</i> was 
<b>not</b> invented by the <i>"petty-bourgeois democrats"</i> nor <i>"the 
social-chauvinists and opportunists."</i> It can be found repeatedly in the 
works of Engels and Marx themselves and so <i>"Engels's perfectly clear, 
concise and concrete statement is distorted at every step"</i> not only
<i>"at every step in the propaganda and agitation of the 'official' (i.e., 
opportunist) socialist parties"</i> but also by Engels himself! [<b>Op. Cit.</b> 
p. 336 and pp. 319-20] 
</p><p>
Significantly, we find Marx recounting in 1852 how the <i>"executive power 
with its enormous bureaucratic and military organisation, with its 
wide-ranging and ingenious state machinery . . . sprang up in the days 
of the absolute monarchy, with the decay of the feudal system which it had 
helped to hasten."</i> After 1848, <i>"in its struggle against the revolution, 
the parliamentary republic found itself compelled to strengthen, along with
the repressive, the resources and centralisation of governmental power. All 
revolutions perfected this machine instead of smashing it. The parties 
that contended in turn for domination regarded the possession of this huge 
state edifice as the principal spoils of the victor."</i> However, <i>"under 
the absolute monarchy, during the first Revolution, under Napoleon, 
bureaucracy was only the means of preparing the class rule of the bourgeoisie. 
Under the Restoration, under Louis Philippe, under the parliamentary republic, 
it was the instrument of the ruling class, however much it strove for power of 
its own."</i> It was <i>"[o]nly under the second Bonaparte does the state 
seem to have made itself completely independent."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>,
pp. 169-70]
</p><p>
This analysis is repeated in <b>The Civil War in France</b>, except the
expression <i>"the State power"</i> is used as an equivalent to the 
<i>"state machinery."</i> Again, the state machine/power is portrayed 
as coming into existence <b>before</b> the republic: <i>"The centralised 
state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, 
bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature . . . originates from the days of 
absolute monarchy."</i> Again, the <i>"bourgeois republicans . . . took 
the state power"</i> and used it to repress the working class. Again, 
Marx called for <i>"the destruction of the state power"</i> and noted 
that the Commune abolished the standing army, the privileged role of 
the clergy, and so on. The Commune's <i>"very existence presupposed 
the non-existence of monarchy, which, in Europe at least, is the normal 
encumbrance and indispensable cloak of class rule. It supplied the 
republic with the basis of really democratic institutions."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b> p. 285, p. 286, p. 288 and p. 290]
</p><p>
Obviously, then, what the socialist revolution had to smash existed
<b>before</b> the republican state was created and was an inheritance
of pre-bourgeois rule (even if the bourgeoisie utilised it for its
own ends). How this machine was to be smashed was left unspecified but
given that it was not identical to the <i>"parliamentary republic"</i> 
Marx's arguments cannot be taken as evidence that the democratic state 
needed to be smashed or destroyed rather than seized by means of universal 
suffrage (and reformed appropriately, by <i>"smashing"</i> the <i>"state 
machinery"</i> as well as including recall of representatives and the
combining of administrative and legislative tasks into their hands). 
Clearly, Lenin's attempt to equate the <i>"parliamentary republic"</i> 
with the <i>"state machinery"</i> cannot be supported in Marx's account. 
At best, it could be argued that it is the spirit of Marx's analysis, 
perhaps bringing it up to date. However, this was <b>not</b> Lenin's 
position (he maintained that social democracy had hidden Marx's clear 
call to smash the bourgeois democratic state).
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, Lenin does not discuss the numerous quotes by Marx and Engels 
on this matter which clearly contradict his thesis. Nor mention that in 1871, 
a few months after the Commune, Marx argued that in Britain, <i>"the way to show 
[i.e., manifest] political power lies open to the working class. Insurrection 
would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do 
the work."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 22, p. 602] The following year, 
saw him suggest that America could join it as <i>"the workers can achieve their 
aims by peaceful means"</i> there as well [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 23, p. 255] 
How if Marx <b>had</b> concluded that the capitalist state had to be destroyed 
rather than captured and refashioned then he quickly changed his mind! In fact,
during the Commune itself, in April 1871, Marx had written to his friend 
Ludwig Kugelman <i>"[i]f you look at the last chapter of my <b>Eighteenth 
Brumaire</b> you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French 
revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic military 
machine from one hand to another, but to break it, and that is essential for 
every real peoples revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic 
Party [sic!] comrades in Paris are attempting."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 44,
p. 131] As noted above, Marx explicitly noted that the bureaucratic military 
machine predated the republic and was, in effect, inherited by it.
</p><p>
Lenin did note that Marx <i>"restricts his conclusion to the Continent"</i> 
on the issue of smashing the state machine, but does not list an obvious 
factor, that the UK approximated universal suffrage, in why this was the 
case (thus Lenin did not note that Engels, in 1891, added <i>"democratic 
republics like France"</i> to the list of states where <i>"the old society 
may peacefully evolve into the new."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 27, p. 226]). 
In 1917, Lenin argued, <i>"this restriction"</i> was <i>"no longer valid"</i> 
as both Britain and America had <i>"completely sunk into the all-European 
filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions."</i> [<b>Op. 
Cit.</b>, pp. 336-7] Subsequently, he repeated this claim in his polemic 
against Karl Kautsky, stating that notions that reforming the state were
now out of date because of <i>"the existence of <b>militarism</b> and a 
<b>bureaucracy</b>"</i> which <i>"were <b>non-existent</b> in Britain and 
America"</i> in the 1870s. He pointed to how <i>"the most democratic and 
republican bourgeoisie in America . . . deal with workers on strike"</i> 
as further proof of his position. [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 28, p. 238 
and p. 244] However, this does not impact on the question of whether 
universal suffrage could be utilised in order to be in a position to 
smash this state machine or not. Equally, Lenin failed to acknowledge 
the violent repression of strikes in the 1870s and 1880s in America 
(such as the Great Upheaval of 1877 or the crushing of the 8 hour day
movement after the Haymarket police riot of 1886). As Martov argued 
correctly:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The theoretic possibility [of peaceful reform] has not revealed itself in 
reality. But the sole fact that he admitted such a possibility shows us 
clearly Marxs opinion, leaving no room for arbitrary interpretation. 
What Marx designated as the 'destruction of the State machine' . . .
was the destruction of the <b>military and bureaucratic apparatus</b> that 
the bourgeois democracy had inherited from the monarchy and perfected 
in the process of consolidating the rule of the bourgeois class. There 
is nothing in Marxs reasoning that even suggests the destruction of 
the <b>State organisation as such</b> and the replacement of the State 
during the revolutionary period, that is during the dictatorship of 
the proletariat, with a social bond formed on a <b>principle opposed 
to that of the State.</b> Marx and Engels foresaw such a substitution 
only at the end of a process of 'a progressive withering away' of 
the State and all the functions of social <b>coercion</b>. They foresaw 
this atrophy of the State and the functions of social coercion to 
be the result of the prolonged existence of the socialist regime."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 31]
</blockquote></p><p>
It should also be remembered that Marx's comments on smashing the state
machine were made in response to developments in France, a regime 
that Marx and Engels viewed as <b>not</b> being purely bourgeois. Marx
notes in his account of the Commune how, in France, <i>"[p]eculiar 
historical circumstances"</i> had <i>"prevented the classical development 
. . . of the bourgeois form of government."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>, 
p. 289] For Engels, Proudhon <i>"confuses the French Bureaucratic government 
with the normal state of a bourgeoisie that rules both itself and the
proletariat."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 11, p. 548] In the 1870s,
Marx considered Holland, Britain and the USA to have <i>"the genuine 
capitalist state."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 24, p. 499] Significantly, 
it was precisely these states in which Marx had previously stated a 
peaceful revolution could occur:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"We know that the institutions, customs and traditions in the different 
countries must be taken into account; and we do not deny the existence 
of countries like America, England, and if I knew your institutions 
better I might add Holland, where the workers may achieve their aims 
by peaceful means. That being the true, we must admit that in most 
countries on the continent it is force which must be the lever of 
our revolution; it is force which will have to be resorted to for a 
time in order to establish the rule of the workers."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
vol. 23, p. 255]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Interestingly, in 1886, Engels expanded on Marx's speculation as regards
Holland and confirmed it. Holland, he argued, as well as <i>"a residue of
local and provincial self-government"</i> also had <i>"an absence of any 
real bureaucracy in the French or Prussian sense"</i> because, alone in 
Western Europe, it did not have an <i>"absolute monarchy"</i> between the 
16th and 18th century. This meant that <i>"only a few changes will have to 
be made to establish that free self-government by the working [people] 
which will necessarily be our best tool in the organisation of the mode 
of production."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 47, pp. 397-8] Few would argue
that smashing the state and its replacement with a new workers' one would 
really constitute a <i>"few changes"</i>! However, Engels position does fit 
in with the notion that the <i>"state machine"</i> to be smashed is a legacy 
of absolute monarchy rather than the state structure of a bourgeois democratic 
republic. It also shows the nature of a Marxist revolution in a republic, in
a <i>"genuine capitalist state"</i> of the type Marx and Engels expected to
be the result of the first stage of any revolt.
</p><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. [<b>Selected Works</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 argued 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><p>
The nature of <b>The Civil War in France</b> and the circumstances in 
which it was written explains why. Marx, while publicly opposing any 
kind of revolt before hand, did support the Commune once it began. His
essay is primarily a propaganda piece in defence of it and is, 
fundamentally, reporting on what the Commune actually did and advocated. 
Thus, as well as reporting the Communal Constitution's vision of a 
federation of communes, we find Marx noting, also without comment, 
that Commune decreed <i>"the surrender to associations of workmen, under 
reserve of compensation, of all closed workshops and factories."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 294] While Engels, at times, suggested that this 
could be a possible policy for a socialist government, it is fair to 
say that few Marxists consider Marx's reporting of this particular 
aspect of the Commune as being a key aspect of his ideology. As Marx's
account reports on the facts of the Commune it could hardly <b>not</b> 
reflect the libertarian ideas which were so strong in both it and the 
French sections of the International - ideas he had spent much time 
and energy opposing. Moreover, given the frenzy of abuse the Communards 
were subject to it by the bourgeoisie, it was unlikely that Marx would 
have aided the reaction by being overly critical. Equally, given how 
positively the Commune had been received in working class and radical 
circles Marx would have been keen to gain maximum benefit from it 
for both the International and his own ideology and influence. 
This would also have ensured that Marx kept his criticisms quiet, 
particularly as he was writing on behalf of an organisation which was 
not Marxist and included various different socialist tendencies. 
</p><p>
This means that to fully understand Marx and Engels, we need to look at
<b>all</b> their writings, before and after the Paris Commune. It is,
therefore, significant that <b>immediately</b> after the Commune Marx 
stated that workers could achieve socialism by utilising existing 
democratic states <b>and</b> that the labour movement should take part 
in political action and send workers to Parliament. There is no mention 
of a federation of communes in these proposals and they reflect ideas 
both he and Engels had expressed since the 1840s. Ten years after the
Commune, Marx stated that it was <i>"merely an uprising of one city in
exceptional circumstances.</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 46, p. 66]
Similarly, a mere 3 years after the Commune, Engels argued that the 
key thing in Britain was <i>"to form anew a strong workers' party with 
a definite programme, and the best political programme they could wish 
for was the People's Charter."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 23, p. 614] 
The Commune was not mentioned and, significantly, Marx had previously 
defined this programme in 1855 as being <i>"to increase and extend the 
omnipotence of Parliament by elevating it to peoples power. They [the
Chartists] are not breaking up parliamentarism but are raising it to a 
higher power."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 14, p. 243]
</p><p>
As such, Marx's defence of the Commune should not mean ignoring the 
whole body of his and Engels work, nor should Marx's conclusion that the 
<i>"state machinery"</i> must be smashed in a successful revolution be
considered to be in contradiction with his comments on utilising the
existing democratic republic. It does, however, suggest that Marx's 
reporting of the Proudhon-influenced ideas of the Communards cannot 
be taken as a definitive account of his ideas on social transformation.
</p><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 <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>Op. Cit.</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 repeated comments that 
universal suffrage was the equivalent of political power for the working 
class where the proletariat was the majority of the population. Or, indeed, 
Engels numerous similar comments. It explains the repeated suggestion by 
Marx that there were countries like America and Britain <i>"where the 
workers can achieve their aims by peaceful means."</i> There is Engels:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"One can imagine that the old society could peacefully grow into 
the new in countries where all power is concentrated in the people's 
representatives, where one can constitutionally do as one pleases as 
soon as a majority of the people give their support; in democratic
republics like France and America, in monarchies such as England, 
where the dynasty is powerless against the popular will. But in 
Germany, where the government is virtually all-powerful and the 
Reichstag and other representative bodies are without real power, 
to proclaim likewise in Germany . . . is to accept the fig leaf of
absolutism and to bind oneself to it."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 27, 
p. 226]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
This, significantly, repeats Marx's comments in an unpublished article
from 1878 on the Reichstag debates on the anti-socialist laws where, 
in part, he suggested that <i>"[i]f in England . . . or the United States, 
the working class were to gain a majority in Parliament or Congress, 
they could by lawful means, rid themselves of such laws and institutions 
as impeded their development . . . However, the 'peaceful' movement might 
be transformed into a 'forcible' one by resistance on the part of those
interested in restoring the former state of affairs; if . . . they 
are put down by <b>force</b>, it is as rebels against 'lawful' force."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 24, p. 248] Sadly, he never finished and published 
it but it is in line with many of his public pronouncements on this
subject.
</p><p>
Marx also excluded countries on the European mainland (with the
possible exception of Holland) from his suggestions of peaceful
reform. In those countries, presumably, the first stage of the
revolution would be, as stressed in the <b>Communist Manifesto</b>,
creating a fully democratic republic (<i>"to win the battle for 
democracy"</i> - see <a href="secH1.html#sech11">section H.1.1</a>). 
As Engels put it, <i>"the first and direct result of the revolution 
with regard to the <b>form</b> can and <b>must</b> be nothing but 
the <b>bourgeois</b> republic. But this will be here only a brief 
transitional period . . . The bourgeois republic . . . will enable 
us to <b>win over the great masses of the workers to revolutionary 
socialism</b> . . . Only them can we successfully take over."</i> 
The <i>"proletariat can only use the form of the one and indivisible 
republic"</i> for it is <i>"the sole political form in which the 
struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie can be fought 
to a finish."</i> [Marx and Engels, <b>The Socialist Revolution</b>, 
p. 265, p. 283 and p. 294] As he summarised: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Marx and I, for forty years, repeated ad nauseam that for us the 
democratic republic is the only political form in which the struggle 
between the working class and the capitalist class can first be 
universalised and then culminate in the decisive victory of the 
proletariat."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 27, p. 271] 
</blockquote></p><p>
It is for these reasons 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 in his discussion of Lenin's "discovery" 
of the "real" Marxist theory on the state (in <b>State and Revolution</b>) 
stressed 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 distanced Marx and Engels 
quite successfully from such a position. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 42] As 
such, he makes a valid contribution to Marxism and presents a necessary 
counter-argument to Lenin's claims (at which point, we are sure, nine 
out of ten Leninists will dismiss our argument regardless of how well 
it explains apparent contradictions in Marx and Engels or how much 
evidence can be presented in support of it!). 
</p><p>
This position should not be confused with a totally reformist position, as
social-democracy became. Marx and Engels were well aware that a revolution 
would be needed to create and defend a republic. Engels, for example, 
noted <i>"how totally mistaken is the belief that a republic, and not only 
a republic, but also a communist society, can be established in a cosy, 
peaceful way."</i> Thus violent revolution was required to create a republic
- Marx and Engels were revolutionaries, after all. Within a republic, both
recognised that insurrection would be required to defend democratic 
government against attempts by the capitalist class to maintain its 
economic position. Universal suffrage was, to quote Engels, <i>"a splendid 
weapon"</i> which, while <i>"slower and more boring than the call to revolution"</i>, 
was <i>"ten times more sure and what is even better, it indicates with the most 
perfect accuracy the day when a call to armed revolution has to be made."</i> 
This was because it was <i>"even ten to one that universal suffrage, intelligently 
used by the workers, will drive the rulers to overthrow legality, that is, to 
put us in the most favourable position to make revolution."</i> <i>"The big 
mistake"</i>, Engels argued, was <i>"to think that the revolution is something 
that can be made overnight. As a matter of fact it is a process of development 
of the masses that takes several years even under conditions accelerating this 
process."</i> Thus it was a case of, <i>"as a revolutionary, any means which
leads to the goal is suitable, including the most violent and the most pacific."</i>
[Marx and Engels, <b>The Socialist Revolution</b>, p. 283, p. 189, p. 265 and p. 274]
However, over time and as social democratic parties and universal suffrage spread,
the emphasis did change from insurrection (the <b>Communist Manifesto</b>'s
<i>"violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie"</i>) to Engels last pronouncement 
that <i>"the conditions of struggle had essentially changed. Rebellion in the
old style, street fighting with barricades . . . , was to a considerable extent
obsolete."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>, p. 45 and pp. 653-4]
</p><p>
Obviously, neither Marx nor Engels (unlike Bakunin, significantly) saw the 
rise of reformism which usually made this need for the ruling class to 
<i>"overthrow legality"</i> redundant. Nor, for that matter, did they see the 
effect of economic power in controlling workers parties once in office. Sure, 
armed coups have taken place to overthrow even slightly reformist governments 
but, thanks to the use of "political action", the working class was in no 
position to <i>"make revolution"</i> in response. Not, of course, that 
these have been required in most republics as utilising Marxist methods 
have made many radical parties so reformist that the capitalists can easily
tolerate their taking office or can utilise economic and bureaucratic pressures 
to control them.
</p><p>
So far from arguing, as Lenin suggested, for the destruction of the capitalist 
state, Marx and Engels consistently advocated the use of universal suffrage to
gain control over the state, control which then would be used to smash or shatter
the <i>"state machine."</i> Revolution would be required to create a republic 
and to defend it against reaction, but the key was the utilisation of political
action to take political power within a democratic state. The closest that Marx 
or Engels came to advocating workers councils was in 1850 when Marx suggested 
that the German workers <i>"establish their own revolutionary workers' 
governments"</i> alongside of the <i>"new official governments"</i>. These 
could be of two forms, either of <i>"municipal committees and municipal 
councils"</i> or <i>"workers' clubs or workers' committees."</i> There is 
no mention of how these would be organised but their aim would be to supervise 
and threaten the official governments <i>"by authorities backed by the whole 
mass of the workers."</i> These clubs would be <i>"centralised"</i>. In 
addition, <i>"workers candidates are [to be] put up alongside of the
bourgeois-democratic candidates"</i> to <i>"preserve their independence"</i>.
(although this "independence" meant taking part in bourgeois institutions
so that <i>"the demands of the workers must everywhere be governed by
the concessions and measures of the democrats."</i>). [<b>The Marx-Engels
Reader</b>, p. 507, p. 508 and p. 510] So while these <i>"workers' 
committees"</i> could, in theory, be elected from the workplace Marx
made no mention of this possibility (talk of <i>"municipal councils"</i> 
suggests that such a possibility was alien to him). It also should be 
noted that Marx was echoing Proudhon who, the year before, had argued 
that the clubs <i>"had to be organised. The organisation of popular 
societies was the fulcrum of democracy, the corner-stone of the 
republican order."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 48]
So, as with the soviets, even the idea of workers' clubs as a means of
ensuring mass participation was first raised by anarchists (although,
of course, inspired by working class self-organisation during the 1848
French revolution).
</p><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 possible 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). 
After all, the Mensheviks used Marx's 1850s arguments to support their 
activities in the soviets in 1905 (while the Bolshevik's expressed hostility 
to both the policy and the soviets) and, of course, there is nothing in 
them to exclude such a position. 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. If, as John Rees asserts, 
<i>"the socialist revolution must counterpoise the soviet to parliament . . . 
precisely because it needs an organ which combines economic power - the power
to strike and take control of the workplaces - with an insurrectionary bid for 
political power"</i> and <i>"breaking the old state"</i> then the ironic thing 
is that it was Bakunin, <b>not</b> Marx, who advocated such a position. 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 25] Given this, the shock which met Lenin's arguments 
in 1917 can be easily understood.
</p><p>
Rather than being rooted in the Marxist vision of revolution, as it has 
been in anarchism since at least 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><p><blockquote><i>
"while it is true that Lenin recognised the different functions and 
democratic raison d'tre 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><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 cannot but flow from the flawed
Marxist theory of the state we discussed in <a href="secH3.html#sech37">section H.3.7</a>.
If, as Marx and Engels argued, the state is simply an instrument of class
rule then it becomes unproblematic to utilise the existing republican state
or create a new form of state complete with representative structures.
The Marxist perspective, moreover, 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><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 give power to workers organisations?</h2></a>

<p>
The short answer depends on which branch of Marxism you mean.
</p><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. Some Marxists, like the <b>Socialist 
Party of Great Britain</b>, stay true to Marx and Engels and argue for 
using the ballot box (see <a href="secH3.html#sech310">last section</a>)
although this not exclude utilising such organs once political power is
seized by those means. However, if we look at the mainstream Marxist 
tradition (namely Leninism), the answer has to be an empathic "no." 
</p><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 of the 2001 Argentine 
revolt against neo-liberalism 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><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>, that is <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 noted 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> [<b>Collected Works</b>, 
vol. 12, pp. 143-4] 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><p>
As Oscar Anweiler summarises in his account of the soviets
during the two Russian Revolutions:
</p><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><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) as we noted in <a href="secH3.html#sech33">section H.3.3</a>.
The Bolsheviks had, by this stage, explicitly argued for party 
dictatorship and considered it a truism that the whole proletariat
could not rule nor could the proletarian dictatorship be exercised
by a mass working class organisation. 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 
organisations in purely instrumental terms as the means of achieving 
a Leninist government:
</p><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><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>, pp. 3-82, <b>International Socialism</b>, 
no. 52, p. 73] However, in reality 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><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 (see <a href="secH6.html#sech61">section H.6.1</a>).
The Bolsheviks only supported <i>"Soviet power"</i> when the soviets 
were Bolshevik. As was recognised by leading left-Menshevik Julius
Martov, who argued that the Bolsheviks loved Soviets only when they 
were <i>"in the hands of the Bolshevik party."</i> [quoted by Israel 
Getzler, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 174] Which 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><p>
All this can be confirmed, unsurprisingly enough, by looking at
the essay Rees references. When studying Trotsky's work we find 
the same instrumentalist approach to the question of the <i>"popular 
organs of working class power."</i> Yes, there is some discussion 
on whether soviets or <i>"some of form of organisation"</i> like
factory committees could become <i>"organs of state power"</i> but
this is always within the context of party power. 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> [<b>Lessons of 
October</b>, p. 167 and p. 127] 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><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> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 117]
</blockquote></p><p>
Hence soviets were 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, with 
such organs of "workers' power" discussed 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. Why should he, when 
<i>"the task of the Communist party is the conquest of power for the 
purpose of reconstructing society"</i>? [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 118 and 
p. 174] 
</p><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 stated 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> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 134] Note, <b>through</b> the soviets not 
<b>by</b> the soviets, thus showing that the Party would hold the real 
power, not the soviets of workers' delegates. This is confirmed when Trotsky 
stated 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. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 134, p. 158 and p. 161]
</p><p>
Thus we have the <i>"seizure of power through the soviets"</i> with <i>"an 
armed insurrection"</i> for <i>"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>did</b> note that in 1917 the 
<i>"soviets had to either disappear entirely or take real power into their 
hands."</i> However, he immediately added that <i>"they could take power . . . 
only as the dictatorship of the proletariat directed by a single party."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 126] Clearly, the <i>"single party"</i> has the real 
power, <b>not</b> the soviets an unsurprisingly the rule of <i>"a single 
party"</i> also amounted to the soviets effectively disappearing as 
they quickly became mere ciphers it. 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 when
he wrote <b>Lessons of October</b> (and, indeed, into the 1930s).
</p><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 noted 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> and so
<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><p>
So where does this leave the 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 another 
member 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 provided 
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 asserted, <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 added 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><p>
Thus the key organisation was the party, <b>not</b> the mass 
organisations of the working class. Indeed,  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 and 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><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 had 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><p>
In contrast, 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 we 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><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><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. 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><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></a>

<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:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Then came the concentration of the means of production
and of the producers in large workshops and manufactories,
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 products
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><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>
[Engels, <b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, pp. 703-4]
</blockquote></p><p>
It is the business cycle 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> The later does not change the 
<i>"capitalist relation"</i> although it 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><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><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><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> 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 
this, which can be traced back to at least as far as Bolshevik 
(and Left Oppositionist) Evgeny Preobrazhensky (although his 
perspective, like most Leninist ones, has deep roots in the 
Social Democratic orthodoxy of the Second International). 
Preobrazhensky, as well as expounding the need for <i>"primitive 
socialist accumulation"</i> to build up Soviet Russia's industry, 
also discussed <i>"the contradiction of the law of planning and 
the law of value."</i> [Hillel Ticktin, <i>"Leon Trotsky and the 
Social Forces Leading to Bureaucracy, 1923-29"</i>, pp. 45-64, 
<b>The Ideas of Leon Trotsky</b>, Hillel Ticktin and Michael Cox
(eds.), p. 45] Thus Marxists in this tradition (like Hillel Ticktin) 
argue 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 Ernest Mandel's term). Thus 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><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 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, wage 
slavery. This meant that many Marxists consider that the basis 
of a socialist economy was guaranteed once property was nationalised. 
This perspective tends to dismiss as irrelevant the way production 
is managed. The anarchist critique that this simply replaced a 
multitude of bosses with one, the state, was (and is) ignored. 
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> that the bourgeoisie <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> [Marx and Engels, <b>Op. Cit.</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, namely, the internal organisation of what they term 
<i>"socialised production."</i>
</p><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 and so the 
<i>"relations of production"</i> which prefigure socialism are, 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><p>
This mirrors Marx's famous prediction that the capitalist mode of production 
produces <i>"the centralisation of capitals"</i> as one capitalist <i>"always
strikes down many others."</i> This leads to <i>"the further socialisation
of labour and the further transformation of the soil and other means 
of production into socially exploited and therefore communal means of
production takes on a new form."</i> Thus capitalist progress itself
objectively produces the necessity for socialism as it socialises the
production process and produces a working class <i>"constantly increasing
in numbers, and trained, united and organised by the very mechanism of
the capitalist process of production. The monopolisation of capital
becomes a fetter upon the mode of production . . . The centralisation
of the means of production and the socialisation of labour reach a
point at which they become incompatible with their capitalist integument.
This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property
sounds. The expropriators are expropriated."</i> [<b>Capital</b>, vol. 1,
pp. 928-9] Note, it is not the workers who organise themselves but rather
they are <i>"organised by the very mechanism of the capitalist process of 
production."</i> Even in his most libertarian work, <i>"The Civil War in
France"</i>, this perspective can be found. He, rightly, praised attempts 
by the Communards to set up co-operatives (although distinctly failed to 
mention Proudhon's obvious influence) but then went on to argue that the 
working class had <i>"no ready-made utopias to introduce"</i> and that 
<i>"to work out their own emancipation, and along with it that that higher 
form to which present society is irresistibly tending by its own economical 
agencies"</i> they simply had <i>"to set free the elements of the new 
society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant."</i> 
[<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, pp. 635-6]
</p><p>
Then we have Marx, in his polemic against Proudhon, arguing 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. That a
given technological basis (or productive forces) can produces many
different social and political systems can easily be seen from history. 
Murray Bookchin gives one example:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Technics . . . does not fully or even adequately account for the
institutional differences between a fairly democratic federation
such as the Iroquois and a highly despotic empire such as the Inca.
From a strictly instrumental viewpoint, the two structures were
supported by almost identical 'tool kits.' Both engaged in 
horticultural practices that were organised around primitive
implements and wooden hoes. Their weaving and metalworking 
techniques were very similar . . . At the <b>community</b> level,
Iroquois and Inca populations were immensely similar . . . 
</p><p>
"Yet at the <b>political</b> level of social life, a democratic confederal
structure of five woodland tribes obviously differs decisively from
a centralised, despotic structure of mountain Indian chiefdoms. The
former, a highly libertarian confederation . . . The latter, a massively
authoritarian state . . . Communal management of resources and produce
among the Iroquois tribes occurred at the clan level. By contrast, Inca
resources were largely state-owned, and much of the empire's produce
was simply confiscation . . . and their redistribution from central and
local storehouses. The Iroquois worked together freely . . . the Inca
peasantry provided corvee labour to a patently exploitative priesthood
and state apparatus under a nearly industrial system of management."</i> 
[<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, pp. 331-2]
</blockquote></p><p>
Marx's claim that a given technological level implies a specific social 
structure is 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 so classes are correct. 
The implications of this position became clear during the Russian revolution.
</p><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 <i>"inherit"</i> 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 (see Maurice Brinton's
classic account of this process, <b>The Bolsheviks and Workers'
Control</b>).
</p><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. Rudolf Hilferding 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><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> [<b>Finance Capital</b>, 
pp. 367-8] 
</blockquote></p><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> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 23, p. 325] 
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> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 10, p. 73]
</p><p>
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>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 25, p. 358] 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 [i.e., trusts] , 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>, vol. 26, pp. 105-6 and p. 110]
</p><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. 106] 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="secH6.html#sech62">section H.6.2</a>,
workers were organising federations of factory committees which 
could have been, as anarchists argued at the time, the basis of
a genuine socialist economy). 
</p><p>
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><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 lead 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 "neutral" 
or just the "application of science." 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. 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><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><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>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 229]
</blockquote></p><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>, vol. 25,  p. 344] 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. Thus, for Lenin in early 1918 
<i>"our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to 
spare <b>no effort</b> in copying it and not to shrink from adopting 
<b>dictorial</b> methods to hasten the copying of it."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 27, p. 340] In the words of Luigi Fabbri:
</p><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><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>, pp. 13-49, <b>The Poverty of 
Statism</b>, Albert Meltzer (ed.), pp. 21-22]
</blockquote></p><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><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. It is extremely doubtful that there
could be a positive answer to it. This does not mean, we just 
stress, that anarchists argue exclusively 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 may be undesirable from a perspective
which values people and planet instead of power and profit. 
</p><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><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><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 . . . 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 networks <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><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> or <i>"law of 
mutual aid"</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. 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 <a href="secI2.html#seci23">section 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><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 
struggle against it. 

<a name="sech313"><h2>H.3.13 Why is state socialism just state capitalism?</h2></a>

<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. Marxism 
would, as Kropotkin predicted, be  <i>"the worship of the 
State, of authority and of State Socialism, which is in 
reality nothing but State capitalism."</i> [quoted by
Ruth Kinna, <i>"Kropotkin's theory of Mutual Aid in 
Historical Context"</i>, pp. 259-283, <b>International 
Review of Social History</b>, No. 40,  p. 262]
</p><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. 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><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><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> 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> [Marx and Engels, <b>Selected Works</b>, 
pp. 52-3] Thus <i>"feudal estates . . . mines, pits, and so forth, 
would become property of the state"</i> as well as <i>"[a]ll 
means of transport,"</i> with <i>"the running of large-scale 
industry and the railways by the state."</i> [<b>Collected 
Works</b>, vol. 7, p. 3, p. 4 and p. 299]
</p><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><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> 
[Engels, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 709 and p. 717]
</p><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.
Rudolf 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]
The Bolsheviks inherited this concept of "socialism" and 
implemented it, with terrible results.
</p><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 tells 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><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><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>"<b>[a]ll</b> citizens 
are transformed into hired employees of the state . . . 
<b>All</b> 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> [<b>Collected Works</b>, 
vol. 25, pp. 473-4] 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><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><p>
All of which makes Bakunin's comments seem justified (as
well as stunningly accurate):
</p><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><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><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><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 argued, 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 went 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) without 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><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> [Kropotkin,
<b>Anarchism</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><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 direct hands 
of the workers. 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. 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, and they ensured that 
it was marginalised within a centralised system of state control 
based on nationalisation.
</p><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. While the hostility of
the capitalist class to such regimes is often used by Leninists
as a rationale to defend them (as <i>"degenerated workers' states"</i>,
to use the Trotskyist term) this is a radically false conclusion.
As one anarchist argued in 1940 against Trotsky (who first raised
this notion):</p>
<blockquote>
<i>"Expropriation of the capitalist class is naturally terrifying
to 'the bourgeoisie of the whole world,' but that does not prove
anything about a workers' state . . . In Stalinist Russia expropriation
is carried out . . . by, and ultimately for the benefit of, the
bureaucracy, not by the workers at all. The bourgeoisie are afraid of
expropriation, of power passing out of their hands, whoever seizes
it from them. They will defend their property against any class or
clique. The fact that they are indignant [about Stalinism] proves their
fear - it tells us nothing at all about the agents inspiring that
fear."</i> [J.H., <i>"The Fourth International"</i>, pp. 37-43,
<b>The Left and World War II</b>, Vernon Richards (ed.), pp. 41-2]
</blockquote></p><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). The <i>"means of wealth production"</i> are <i>"owned 
by the state which represents, as always, a privileged class - the 
bureaucracy."</i> The workers <i>"do not either individually or 
collectively own anything, and so, as elsewhere, are compelled to 
sell their labour power to the employer, in this case the state."</i> 
[<i>"USSR - The Anarchist Position"</i>, pp. 21-24, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 23] 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. As one Chinese anarchist put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Marxian socialism advocates the centralisation not only of
political power but also of capital. The centralisation of
political power is dangerous enough in itself; add to that the
placing of all sources of wealth in the hands of the government,
and the so-called state socialism becomes merely state capitalism,
with the state as the owner of the means of production and the 
workers as its labourers, who hand over the value produced by
their labour. The bureaucrats are the masters, the workers their
slaves. Even though they advocate a state of the dictatorship of
workers, the rulers are bureaucrats who do not labour, while 
workers are the sole producers. Therefore, the suffering of workers
under state socialism is no different from that under private
capitalism."</i> [Ou Shengbai, quoted by Arif Dirlik, <b>Anarchism in
the Chinese Revolution</b>, p. 224]
</blockquote></p><p>
In this fashion, decisions about the allocation and use of the 
productive assets are 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. The mode of distributing the social product
is inseparable from the mode of production and its social 
relationships. Which shows the fundamentally confused nature
of Trotsky's attempts to denounce the Stalinist regime's privileges 
as "bourgeois" while defending its "socialist" economic base (see
Cornelius Castoriadis, <i>"The Relations of Production in Russia"</i>,
pp. 107-158, <b>Political and Social Writings</b>, vol. 1).
</p><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><p>
As anarcho-syndicalist Tom Brown stressed, 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><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><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><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><p>
Finally, it should be mentioned that some Leninists do have an 
analysis of Stalinism as "state capitalist," most noticeably the 
British SWP. According to the creator of this theory, Tony Cliff,
Stalinism had to be considered a class system because <i>"[i]f the 
state is the repository of the means of production and the workers 
do not control it, they do not own the means of production, i.e., 
they are not the ruling class."</i> Which is fine, as far as it goes
(anarchists would stress the social relations <b>within</b> production 
as part of our criteria for what counts as socialism). The problems 
start to accumulate when Cliff tries to explain why Stalinism was 
(state) capitalist. 
</p><p>
For Cliff, internally the USSR could be viewed as one big factory 
and the division of labour driven by bureaucratic decree. Only when 
Stalinism was <i>"viewed within the international economy the basic 
features of capitalism can be discerned."</i> Thus it is international
competition which makes the USSR subject to "the law of value" and, 
consequently, capitalist. However, as international trade was tiny 
under Stalinism <i>"competition with other countries is mainly 
military."</i> It is this indirect competition in military matters 
which made Stalinist Russia capitalist rather than any internal 
factor. [<b>State capitalism in Russia</b>, pp. 311-2, p. 221 and 
p. 223]
</p><p>
The weakness of this argument should be obvious. From an anarchist
position, it fails to discuss the social relations within production
and the obvious fact that workers could, and did, move workplaces
(i.e., there was a market for labour). Cliff only mentions the fact 
that the Stalinist regime's plans were never fulfilled when he shows 
up the inefficiencies of Stalinist mismanagement. With regards to 
labour, that appears to be divided according to the plan. Similarly,
to explain Stalinism's "capitalist" nature as being a product of
military competition with other, more obviously, capitalist states
is a joke. It is like arguing that Ford is a capitalist company 
because BMW is! As one libertarian Marxist put it: <i>"One can only 
wonder as to the type of contortions Cliff might have got into if 
Soviet military competition had been with China alone!"</i> [Neil C. 
Fernandez, <b>Capitalism and Class Struggle in the USSR</b>, p. 65]
Significantly, Cliff raised the possibility of single world-wide 
Stalinist regime and concluded it would <b>not</b> be state 
capitalist, it would <i>"be a system of exploitation not subject 
to the law of value and all its implications."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 225] As Fernandez correctly summarises:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Cliff's position appears untenable when it is remembered that
whatever capitalism may or may not entail, what it <b>is</b> 
a mode of production, defined by a certain type of social 
production relations. If the USSR is capitalist simply because
it produces weaponry to compete with those countries that
themselves would have been capitalist even without such 
competition, then one might as well say the same about tribes
whose production is directed to the provision of tomahawks
in the fight against colonialism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 65]
</blockquote></p><p>
Strangely, as Marxist, Cliff seemed unaware that, for Marx, "competition"
did not define capitalism. As far as trade goes, the <i>"character of 
the production process from which [goods] derive is immaterial"</i>
and so on the market commodities come <i>"from all modes of production"</i> 
(for example, they could be <i>"the produce of production based on 
slavery, the product of peasants . . ., of a community . . . , of state 
production (such as existed in earlier epochs of Russian history, based 
on serfdom) or half-savage hunting peoples"</i>). [<b>Capital</b>, 
vol. 2, pp. 189-90] This means that trade <i>"exploits a given mode of 
production but does not create it"</i> and so relates <i>"to the mode 
of production from outside."</i> [<b>Capital</b>, vol. 3, p. 745] Much
the same can be said of military competition - it does not define the
mode of production. 
</p><p>
There are other problems with Cliff's argument, namely that it
implies that Lenin's regime was also state capitalist (as 
anarchists stress, but Leninists deny). If, as Cliff suggests, a 
"workers' state" is one in which <i>"the proletariat has direct 
or indirect control, no matter how restricted, over the state power"</i> 
then Lenin's regime was not one within six months. Similarly, 
workers' self-management was replaced by one-man management under 
Lenin, meaning that Stalin inherited the (capitalistic) relations
of production rather than created them. Moreover, if it were military 
competition which made Stalinism "state capitalist" then, surely, 
so was Bolshevik Russia when it was fighting the White and Imperialist 
armies during the Civil War. Nor does Cliff prove that a proletariat 
actually existed under Stalinism, raising the clear contradiction
that <i>"[i]f there is only one employer, a 'change of masters' is 
impossible . . . a mere formality"</i> while also attacking those
who argued that Stalinism was <i>"bureaucratic collectivism"</i> because 
Russian workers were <b>not</b> proletarians but rather slaves. So 
this <i>"mere formality"</i> is used to explain that the Russian 
worker is a proletarian, not a slave, and so Russia was state 
capitalist in nature! [Cliff, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 310, p. 219, 
p. 350 and p. 348]
</p><p>
All in all, attempts to draw a clear line between Leninism and 
Stalinism as regards its state capitalist nature are doomed to
failure. The similarities are far too obvious and simply support
the anarchist critique of state socialism as nothing more than
state capitalism. Ultimately, <i>"Trotskyism merely promises 
socialism by adopting the same methods, and mistakes, which have 
produced Stalinism."</i> [J.H., <i>"The Fourth International"</i>, 
pp. 37-43, <b>The Left and World War II</b>, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 43]
</p><p>

<a name="sech314"><h2>H.3.14 Don't Marxists believe in workers' control?</h2></a>

<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 and so state ownership, for anarchists, is
simply state capitalism. Instead we urge socialisation 
based on workers' self-management of production. Libertarian
Marxists concur.
</p><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> This, it is argued, proves 
that nationalisation (state ownership and control) is not <i>"state 
capitalism"</i> but 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] This explains why many modern day Leninists are often 
heard voicing support for what anarchists consider an obvious
oxymoron, namely <i>"nationalisation under workers' control."</i>
</p><p>
Anarchists are not convinced. This is because of two reasons.
Firstly, because by the term <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><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><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. Thus 
the <i>"slogan of workers control of production"</i> was not equated 
to actual workers control over production. Rather, it was <i>"a sort 
of economic dual power"</i> which meant that <i>"ownership and right 
of disposition remain in the hands of the capitalists."</i> This was 
because it was <i>"obvious that the power is not yet in the hands of 
the proletariat, otherwise we would have not workers' control of 
production but the control of production by the workers' state as an 
introduction to a regime of state production on the foundations of 
nationalisation."</i> [Trotsky, <b>The Struggle Against Fascism in 
Germany</b>, p. 91 and p. 92]
</p><p>
This vision of <i>"workers' control"</i> as simply supervision of
the capitalist managers and a prelude to state control and, ultimately, 
nationalisation 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>). This 
structure would be taken intact from capitalism for <i>"the modern 
state possesses an apparatus which has extremely close connection 
with the banks and [business] syndicates . . .  this apparatus must 
not, and should not, be smashed."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 26, 
p. 105, p. 107, p. 106 and pp. 105-6] Over time, this system would move 
towards full socialism.
</p><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><p>
Secondly, there is the example of the Russian Revolution itself. As 
historian S.A. Smith correctly summarises, the Bolshevik party 
<i>"had no position on the question of workers' control prior to 
1917."</i> 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 proposals were <i>"thoroughly statist and centralist 
in character, whereas the practice of the factory committees 
was essentially local and autonomous."</i> While those
Bolsheviks <i>"connected with the factory committees assigned 
responsibility for workers' control of production chiefly to the
committees"</i> this <i>"never became official Bolshevik party
policy."</i> In fact, <i>"the Bolsheviks never deviated before or 
after October from a commitment to a statist, centralised solution 
to economic disorder. The disagreement between the two wings of the 
socialist movement [i.e., the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks] was not 
about state control in the abstract, but what <b>kind</b> of state 
should co-ordinate control of the economy: a bourgeois state or a 
workers' state?"</i> They <i>"did not disagree radically in the 
specific measures which they advocated for control of the economy."</i> 
Lenin <i>"never developed a conception of workers' self-management.
Even after October, workers' control remained for him fundamentally
a matter of 'inspection' and 'accounting' . . . rather than as being
necessary to the transformation of the process of production by the
direct producers. For Lenin, the transformation of capitalist relations
of production was achieved at central-state level, rather than at
enterprise level. Progress to socialism was guaranteed by the
character of the state and achieved through policies by the central
state - not by the degree of power exercised by workers on the shop
floor."</i> [<b>Red Petrograd</b>, p. 153, p. 154, p. 159, p. 153, p. 154
and p. 228]
 </p><p>
Thus the Bolshevik vision of <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. This
has nothing in common with control by the workers themselves and 
their own class organisations as advocated by anarchists. 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> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 24, 
p. 311] He reiterated this framework later that year, arguing 
that <i>"the new means of control have been created <b>not</b> 
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> The aim
was <i>"compulsory amalgamation in associations under state 
control,"</i> <i>"by workers' control of the <b>workers' state</b>."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 26, p. 108, p. 109 and p. 108] 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><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
counterpoise 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><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>, 
vol. 27, p. 267, p. 269, p. 271 and p. 258]
</p><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 representatives 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> [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><p>
Trotsky did not disagree with all this, quite the reverse - he 
wholeheartedly defended the imposing of <i>"one-man management"</i>. 
As he put it in 1920, <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>
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>). 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>Terrorism 
and Communism</b>, p. 162, p. 109, p. 143 and p. 135]
</p><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]
Significantly, discussing developments in Russia since the N.E.P, 
Trotsky a few years later 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><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><p>
As such, any claim that mainstream Marxism considers <i>"workers' 
control"</i> as an essential feature of its politics is simply 
nonsense. For a comprehensive discussion of <i>"workers' control"</i> 
during the Russian Revolution Maurice Brinton's account cannot be 
bettered. As he stressed, <i>"only the ignorant or those willing 
to be deceived can still kid themselves into believing that 
proletarian power <b>at the point of production</b> was ever a 
fundamental tenet or objective of Bolshevism."</i> [<b>The 
Bolsheviks and Workers' Control</b>, p. 14]
</p><p>
All this is not some academic point. As Brinton noted, faced <i>"with the
bureaucratic monstrosity of Stalinist and post-Stalinist Russia, yet wishing 
to retain some credibility among their working class supporters, various 
strands of Bolshevism have sought posthumously to rehabilitate the concept 
of 'workers' control.'"</i> The facts show that between 1917 and 1921 
<i>"all attempts by the working class to assert real power over production 
- or to transcend the narrow role allocated by to it by the Party - were 
smashed by the Bolsheviks, after first having been denounced as anarchist 
or anarcho-syndicalist deviations. Today workers' control is presented as 
a sort of sugar coating to the pill of nationalisation of every Trotskyist 
or Leninist micro-bureaucrat on the make. Those who strangled the viable 
infant are now hawking the corpse around "</i> [<b>For Workers' Power</b>,
p. 165] Little has changes since Brinton wrote those words in the 1960s, 
with Leninists today proclaiming with a straight face that they stand for 
"self-management"!
</p><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, namely 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>Selected Works</b>, pp. 290-1] In the 1880s,
Engels suggested as a reform the putting of public works and 
state-owned land into the hands of workers' co-operatives
rather than capitalists. [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 47, 
p. 239]
</p><p>
These comments should not be taken as being totally without aspects
of nationalisation. Engels 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>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 389] 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, not to mention the fatal 
confusion of socialisation with nationalisation.
</p><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 socialist, 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.
</p><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 - most obviously Proudhon's demands for workers 
associations to replace wage labour and what he called,
in his <b>Principle of Federation</b>, an <i>"agro-industrial 
federation."</i> Thus the Commune's idea of co-operative 
production was 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] Thus, while 
Engels (in part) echoes Proudhon's ideas, he does not go fully 
towards a self-managed system of co-operation and co-ordination 
based on the workers' own organisations. Significantly, Bakunin 
and later anarchists simply developed these ideas to their logical 
conclusion. 
</p><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. In his 1891 introduction to Marx's <i>"The Civil War in
France"</i>, Engels painted a picture of Proudhon being opposed
to association (except for large-scale industry) and stressed 
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>Selected Works</b>, p. 256] However, as noted, this is nonsense. 
The forming of workers' associations and their federation 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. He also argued 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>! This seems unlikely, given Proudhon's
well known and long-standing advocacy of co-operatives as well as 
Marx's comment 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, 
Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 92, p. 46 and p. 45] 
</p><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><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 without knowing it, Marx had become 
a follower of Proudhon! 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><p>
In ending we 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. This is because 
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>

</body>
</html>