File: secJ3.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 (2852 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 176,872 bytes
<html>
<head>

<title> J.3 What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?</title>

</head>

<body>

<h1>J.3 What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?</h1>

<p>
Anarchists are well aware of the importance of building organisations. 
Organisations allow those within them to multiply their strength and 
activity, becoming the means by which an individual can see their ideas,
hopes and dreams realised. This is as true for getting the anarchist
message across as for building a home, running a hospital or creating 
some useful product. Anarchists support two types of organisation -- 
organisations of anarchists and popular organisations which are not 
made up exclusively of anarchists such as industrial unions, 
co-operatives and community assemblies.
</p><p>
Here we will discuss the kinds, nature and role of the first type 
of organisation, namely explicitly anarchist organisations. In addition, 
we discuss anarcho-syndicalism, a revolutionary unionism which aims to 
create an anarchist society by anarchist tactics, as well as why many 
anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists. The second type of organisations, 
popular ones, are discussed in <a href="secJ5.html">section J.5</a>.
Both forms of organisation, however, share the anarchist commitment to 
confederalism, decentralisation, self-management and decision making 
from the bottom up. In such organisations the membership plays the 
decisive role in running them and ensuring that power remains in their 
hands. They express the anarchist vision of the power and creative 
efficacy people have when they are self-reliant, when they act for 
themselves and manage their own lives directly. Only by organising
in this way can we create a new world, a world worthy of human beings 
and unique individuals.
</p><p>
Anarchist organisation in all its forms reflects our desire to <i>"build 
the new world in the shell of the old"</i> and to empower the individual. 
We reject the notion that it does not really matter how we organise to 
change society. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. We are 
all the products of the influences and social relationships in our lives, 
this is a basic idea of (philosophical) materialism. Thus the way our 
organisations are structured has an impact on us. If the organisation is 
centralised and hierarchical (no matter how "democratically" controlled 
officials or leaders are) then those subject to it will, as in any 
hierarchical organisation, see their abilities to manage their own 
lives, their creative thought and imagination eroded under the constant 
stream of orders from above. This in turn justifies the pretensions to 
power of those at the top, as the capacity of self-management of the rank 
and file is weakened by authoritarian social relationships. This means 
anarchist organisations are structured so that they allow everyone the 
maximum potential to participate. Such participation is the key for a 
free organisation. As Malatesta argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The real being is man, the individual. Society or the collectivity . . . 
if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of individuals. And it 
is in the organism of every individual that all thoughts and human actions
inevitably have their origin, and from being individual they become 
collective thoughts and acts when they are or become accepted by many
individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the
complement of individual initiative, but is the resultant of initiatives,
thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up society."</i> 
[<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 36]
</blockquote></p><p>
Anarchist organisations exist to allow this development and expression
of individual initiatives. This empowering of the individual is an 
important aspect of creating viable solidarity for sheep cannot express
solidarity, they only follow the shepherd. Therefore, <i>"to achieve their
ends, anarchist organisations must, in their constitution and operation,
remain in harmony with the principles of anarchism; that is, they must 
know how to blend the free action of individuals with the necessity and 
the joy of co-operation which serve to develop the awareness and initiative
of their members and a means of education for the environment in which
they operate and of a moral and material preparation for the future we
desire."</i> [Malatesta, <b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 95]
</p><p>
As such, anarchist organisations reflect the sort of society anarchists
desire. We reject as ridiculous the claim of Leninists that the form 
of organisation we build is irrelevant and therefore we must create 
highly centralised parties which aim to become the leadership of 
the working class. No matter how "democratic" such organisations 
are, they just reflect the capitalist division of labour between brain 
and manual work and the Liberal ideology of surrendering our ability to 
govern ourselves to an elected elite. In other words, they just mirror
the very society we are opposed to and so will soon produce the very
problems <b>within</b> so-called anti-capitalist organisations which originally
motivated us to oppose capitalism in the first place 
(see <a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>). Given this,  
anarchists regard <i>"the Marxist party as another statist form that, if it
succeeded in 'seizing power,' would preserve the power of one human
being over another, the authority of the leader over the led. The Marxist
party . . . was a mirror image of the very society it professed to oppose,
an invasion of the camp of revolutionaries by bourgeois values, methods,
and structures."</i> [<b>The Spanish Anarchists</b>, pp. 179-80] As can be seen
from the history of the Russian Revolution, this was the case with the
Bolsheviks soon taking the lead in undermining workers' self-management,
soviet democracy and, finally, democracy within the ruling party itself
(see <a href="secH6.html">section H.6</a>).
</p><p>
From an anarchist (i.e. materialist) point of view, this was highly 
predictable -- after all, <i>"facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, 
as Proudhon said, is but a flower whose root lies in the material conditions
of existence."</i> [Bakunin, <b>God and the State</b>, p. 9] So it is 
unsurprising that hierarchical parties helped to maintain a hierarchical
society. In the words of the famous Sonvillier Circular: <i>"How could 
one want an egalitarian and free society to issue from an authoritarian 
organisation? It is impossible."</i> [quoted in <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, 
p. 45]
</p><p>
We must stress here that anarchists are <b>not</b> opposed to organisation
and are <b>not</b> opposed to organisations of anarchists (i.e. <b>political</b>
organisations, although anarchists generally reject the term "party" due
to its statist and hierarchical associations). Murray Bookchin made it 
clear when he wrote that the <i>"real question at issue here is not 
organisation versus non-organisation, but rather what <b>kind</b> of 
organisation"</i> Anarchist organisations are <i>"organic developments 
from below . . . They are social movements, combing a creative revolutionary 
lifestyle with a creative revolutionary theory . . . As much as is humanly 
possibly, they try to reflect the liberated society they seek to achieve"</i>
and <i>"co-ordination between groups . . . discipline, planning, and unity 
in action . . . achieved <b>voluntarily</b>, by means of a self-discipline 
nourished by conviction and understanding."</i> [<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, 
pp. 138-9]
</p><p>
Ultimately, centralised organisations are undemocratic
and, equally as important, <b>ineffective.</b> Hierarchical 
organisations kill people's enthusiasm and creativity, where 
plans and ideas are not adopted because they are the best but 
simply because they are what a handful of leaders <b>think</b> 
are best for everyone else. Really effective organisations are 
those which make decisions based frank and open co-operation and 
debate, where dissent is <b>not</b> stifled and ideas are adopted 
because of their merit and not imposed from the top-down by a few
party leaders. This is why anarchists stress federalist organisation. 
It ensures that co-ordination flows from below and there is no 
institutionalised leadership. By organising in a way that reflects 
the kind of society we want, we train ourselves in the skills and 
decision making processes required to make a free and classless 
society work. Means and ends are united and this ensures that 
the means used will result in the desired ends. Simply put, 
libertarian means must be used if you want libertarian ends (see 
<a href="secH1.html#sech16">section H.1.6</a> for further 
discussion).
</p><p>
In the sections that follow, we discuss the nature and role of anarchist
organisation. Anarchists would agree with Situationist Guy Debord that 
a <i>"revolutionary organisation must always remember that its objective 
is not getting people to listen to speeches by expert leaders, but getting 
them to speak for themselves."</i> We organise their groups accordingly. 
In <a href="secJ3.html#secj31">section J.3.1</a> we discuss the basic
building block of specifically anarchist organisations, the <b><i>"affinity 
group."</i></b> Sections <a href="secJ3.html#secj32">J.3.2</a>, 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj33">J.3.3</a>, <a href="secJ3.html#secj34">J.3.4</a>
 and <a href="secJ3.html#secj35">J.3.5</a>, we discuss the main 
types of federations of <i><b>affinity groups</b></i> anarchist create to help 
spread our message and influence. Then 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a> highlights the role 
these organisations play in our struggles to create an anarchist society. 
In <a href="secJ3.html#secj37">section J.3.7</a>, we analyse Bakunin's 
unfortunate expression <i>"Invisible Dictatorship"</i> in order to show
how many Marxists distort Bakunin's ideas on this matter. Finally, 
in sections <a href="secJ3.html#secj38">J.3.8</a> and 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj39">J.3.9</a> we 
discuss anarcho-syndicalism and other anarchists attitudes to it.
</p><p>
Anarchist organisations, therefore, aim to enrich social struggle 
by their ideas and suggestions but also, far more importantly, enrich 
the libertarian idea by practical experience and activity. In other words, 
a two way process by which life informs theory and theory aids life. The 
means by which this social dynamic is created and developed is the underlying 
aim of anarchist organisation and is reflected in its theoretical role. The 
power of ideas cannot be under estimated, for <i>"if you have an idea 
you can communicate it to a million people and lose nothing in the 
process, and the more the idea is propagated the more it acquires in 
power and effectiveness."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 46] 
The right idea at the right time, one that reflects the needs of individuals 
and of required social change, can have a transforming effect on society. 
That is why organisations that anarchists create to spread their message 
are so important and why we devote a whole section to them.
</p>

<a name="secj31"><h2>J.3.1 What are affinity groups?</h2></a>

<p>
Affinity groups are the basic organisation which anarchists 
create to spread the anarchist idea. The term <i>"affinity group"</i> 
comes from the Spanish F.A.I. (<b>Iberian Anarchist Federation</b>) 
and refers to the organisational form devised in their struggles for
freedom (from <i>"grupo de afinidad"</i>). At its most basic, it is 
a (usually small) group of anarchists who work together to spread 
their ideas to the wider public, using propaganda, initiating or 
working with campaigns and spreading their ideas <b>within</b> 
popular organisations (such as unions) and communities. It aims not 
to be a "leadership" but to give a lead, to act as a catalyst within 
popular movements. Unsurprisingly it reflects basic anarchist ideas:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Autonomous, communal and directly democratic, the group combines 
revolutionary theory with revolutionary lifestyle in its everyday 
behaviour. It creates a free space in which revolutionaries can remake 
themselves individually, and also as social beings."</i> [Murray 
Bookchin, <b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 144]
</blockquote></p><p>
The reason for this is simple, for a <i>"movement that sought 
to promote a liberatory revolution had to develop liberatory 
and revolutionary forms. This meant . . . that it had to 
mirror the free society it was trying to achieve, not the 
repressive one it was trying to overthrow. If a movement 
sought to achieve a world united by solidarity and mutual aid, 
it had to be guided by these precepts; if it sought to achieve 
a decentralised, stateless, non-authoritarian society, it had 
to be structured in accordance with these goals."</i> [Bookchin,
<b>The Spanish Anarchists</b>, p. 180]
</p><p>
The aim of an anarchist organisation is to promote a sense of 
community, of confidence in ones own abilities, to enable all 
to be involved in the identification, initiation and management 
of group needs, decisions and activities. They must ensure that 
individuals are in a position (both physically, as part of a group, 
and mentally, as an individual) to manage their own lives and take 
direct action in the pursuit of individual and communal needs and 
desires. Anarchist organisation is about empowering all, to develop 
"integral" or whole individuals and a community that encourages 
individuality (not abstract "individualism") and solidarity. It 
is about collective decision making from the bottom up, that 
empowers those at the "base" of the structure and only delegates 
the work of co-ordinating and implementing the members decisions 
(and not the power of making decisions for people). In this way 
the initiative and power of the few (government) is replaced by 
the initiative and empowerment of all (anarchy). Affinity groups 
exist to achieve these aims and are structured to encourage them.
</p><p>
The local affinity group is the means by which anarchists 
co-ordinate their activities in a community, workplace, social 
movement and so on. Within these groups, anarchists discuss their 
ideas, politics and hopes, what they plan to do, organise 
propaganda work, discuss how they are going to work within 
wider organisations like unions, how their strategies fit 
into their long term plans and goals and so on. It is the basic 
way that anarchists work out their ideas, pull their resources and 
get their message across to others. There can be affinity groups 
for different interests and activities (for example a workplace 
affinity group, a community affinity group, an anarcha-feminist 
affinity group, etc., could all exist within the same area, with 
overlapping members). Moreover, as well as these more "political" 
activities, the "affinity group" also stresses the <i>"importance 
of education and the need to live by Anarchist precepts -- the 
need . . . to create a counter-society that could provide the 
space for people to begin to remake themselves."</i> [Bookchin, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 180] In other words, "affinity groups" aim 
to be the <i>"living germs"</i> of the new society in <b>all</b> 
aspects, not purely in a structurally way.
</p><p>
So affinity groups are self-managed, autonomous groupings of anarchists 
who unite and work on specific activities and interests. This means
that <i>"[i]n an anarchist organisation the individual members can 
express any opinion and use any tactic which is not in contradiction 
with accepted principles and which does not harm the activities of 
others."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, 
p. 102] Such groups are a key way for anarchists to co-ordinate their 
activity and spread their message of individual freedom and voluntary 
co-operation. However, the description of what an "affinity group" is 
does not explain <b>why</b> anarchists organise in that way. Essentially, 
these affinity groups are the means by which anarchists actually 
intervene in social movements and struggles in order to win people 
to the anarchist idea and so help transform them from struggles 
<b>against</b> injustice into struggles <b>for</b> a free society. 
We will discuss the role these groups play in anarchist theory in 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>.
</p><p>
These basic affinity groups are not seen as being enough in themselves. 
Most anarchists see the need for local groups to work together with others 
in a confederation. Such co-operation aims to pull resources and expand 
the options for the individuals and groups who are part of the federation. 
As with the basic affinity group, the anarchist federation is a 
self-managed organisation:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Full autonomy, full independence and therefore full responsibility 
of individuals and groups; free accord between those who believe it
is useful to unite in co-operating for a common aim; moral duty to
see through commitments undertaken and to do nothing that would
contradict the accepted programme. It is on these bases that the 
practical structures, and the right tools to give life to the 
organisation should be built and designed. Then the groups, the 
federations of groups, the federations of federations, the meetings, 
the congresses, the correspondence committees and so forth. But all 
this must be done freely, in such a way that the thought and 
initiative of individuals is not obstructed, and with the sole 
view of giving greater effect to efforts which, in isolation, 
would be either impossible or ineffective."</i> [Malatesta, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 101] 
</blockquote>
</p><p>
To aid in this process of propaganda, agitation, political discussion 
and development, anarchists organise federations of affinity groups. 
These take three main forms, <i><b>"synthesis"</i></b> federations (see 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj32">section J.3.2</a>), <b><i>"Platformist"</i></b> 
federations (see <a href="secJ3.html#secj33">section J.3.3</a> while
<a href="secJ3.html#secj34">section J.3.4</a> has criticism of this 
tendency) and <b><i>"class struggle"</i></b> groups (see 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj35">section J.3.5</a>). 
All the various types of federation are based on groups of anarchists 
organising themselves in a libertarian fashion. This is because anarchists 
try to live by the values of the future to the extent that this is possible 
under capitalism and try to develop organisations based upon mutual aid, 
in which control would be exercised from below upward, not downward from above.
We must also note here that these types 
of federation are not mutually exclusive. Synthesis type federations 
often have "class  struggle" and  "Platformist" groups within them 
(although, as will  become clear, Platformist federations do not 
have synthesis groups within them) and most countries have different 
federations representing the different perspectives within 
the movement. Moreover, it should also be noted that no federation 
will be a totally "pure" expression of each tendency. "Synthesis" 
groups merge into "class struggle" ones, Platformist groups do not 
subscribe totally to the Platform and so on. We isolate each 
tendency to show its essential features. In real life few, if 
any, federations will exactly fit the types we highlight. It 
would be more precise to speak of organisations which are 
descended from a given tendency, for example the French <b>Anarchist 
Federation</b> is mostly influenced by the synthesis tradition 
but it is not, strictly speaking, 100% synthesis. Lastly, we must 
also note that the term "class struggle" anarchist group in no way 
implies that "synthesis" and "Platformist" groups do not support 
the class struggle or take part in it, they most definitely do -- 
it is simply a technical term to differentiate between types of
organisation!
</p><p>
It must be stressed anarchists do not reduce the complex issue of 
political organisation and ideas into <b>one</b> organisation but 
instead recognise that different threads within anarchism will express 
themselves in different political organisations (and even within 
the same organisation). A diversity of anarchist groups 
and federations is a good sign and expresses the diversity of 
political and individual thought to be expected in a movement 
aiming for a society based upon freedom. All we aim to do is to 
paint a broad picture of the similarities and differences between 
the various perspectives on organising in the movement and indicate 
the role these federations play in libertarian theory, namely of an 
aid in the struggle, not a new leadership seeking power.
</p>

<a name="secj32"><h2>J.3.2 What are "synthesis" federations?</h2></a>

<p>
The "synthesis" federation acquired its name from the work of 
Voline (a Russian exile) and leading French anarchist Sebastien Faure
in the 1920s. Voline published in 1924 a paper calling for <i>"the 
anarchist synthesis"</i> and was also the author of the article 
in Faure's <b>Encyclopedie Anarchiste</b> on the very same topic. 
Its roots lie in the Russian revolution and the <b>Nabat</b> 
federation created in the Ukraine during 1918 whose aim was 
<i>"organising all of the life forces of anarchism; bringing 
together through a common endeavour all anarchists seriously 
desiring of playing an active part in the social revolution 
which is defined as a process (of greater or lesser duration) 
giving rise to a new form of social existence for the organised 
masses."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 2, p. 117]
</p><p>
The "synthesis" organisation is based on uniting all kinds of anarchists 
in one federation as there is, to use the words of the <b>Nabat</b>, 
<i>"validity in all anarchist schools of thought. We must consider 
all diverse tendencies and accept them."</i> The synthesis 
organisation attempts to get different kinds of anarchists 
<i>"joined together on a number of basic positions and with the 
awareness of the need for planned, organised collective effort 
on the basis of federation."</i> [quoted in <i>"The Reply by 
Several Russian Anarchists"</i>, pp. 32-6, <b>Constructive 
Anarchism</b>, G. P. Maximoff (ed.), p. 32] These basic 
positions would be based on a synthesis of the viewpoints of 
the members of the organisation, but each tendency would be 
free to agree their own ideas due to the federal nature of the 
organisation.
</p><p>
An example of this synthesis approach is provided by the differing
assertions that anarchism is a theory of classes (as stated by the
Platform, among others), that anarchism is a humanitarian ideal
for all people and that anarchism is purely about individuals (and 
so essentially individualist and having nothing to do with humanity 
or with a class). The synthesis of these positions would be to 
<i>"state that anarchism contains class elements as well as humanism 
and individualist principles . . . Its class element is above all its 
means of fighting for liberation; its humanitarian character is its 
ethical aspect, the foundation of society; its individualism is the 
goal of humanity."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 32]
</blockquote></p><p>
So, as can be seen, the "synthesis" tendency aims to unite 
all anarchists (be they individualist, mutualist, syndicalist 
or communist) into one common federation. Thus the "synthesis" 
viewpoint is "inclusive" and obviously has affinities with the 
<i>"anarchism without adjectives"</i> approach favoured by many 
anarchists (see <a href="secA3.html#seca38">section A.3.8</a>). 
However, in practice many "synthesis" organisations are more 
restrictive (for example, they could aim to unite all <b>social</b> 
anarchists) and so there can be a difference between the general 
idea of the synthesis and how it is concretely applied.
</p><p>
The basic idea behind the synthesis is that the anarchist 
movement (in most countries, at most times, including France 
in the 1920s and Russia during the revolution and at this 
time) is divided into three main tendencies: communist 
anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and individualist anarchism. 
This division can cause severe damage to the movement simply 
because of the many (and often redundant) arguments and diatribes 
on why "my anarchism is best" can get in the way of working in 
common in order to fight our common enemies (state, capitalism 
and authority). The "synthesis" federations are defined by agreeing 
what is the common denominator of the various tendencies within 
anarchism and agreeing a minimum programme based on this
for the federation. This would allow a <i>"certain ideological 
and tactical unity among organisations"</i> within the "synthesis" 
federation. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 35] Moreover, as well as saving 
time and energy for more important tasks, there are technical and 
efficiency reasons for unifying into one organisation, namely 
allowing the movement to have access to more resources and being 
able to co-ordinate them so as to maximise their use and impact. 
</p><p>
The "synthesis" federation, like all anarchist groups, aims to 
spread anarchist ideas within society as a whole. They believe 
that their role is to <i>"assist the masses only when they need 
such assistance . . . the anarchists are part of the membership 
in the economic and social mass organisations [such as trade unions]. 
They act and build as part of the whole. An immense field of action 
is opened to them for ideological [sic!], social and creative 
activity without assuming a position of superiority over the
masses. Above all they must fulfil their ideological and
ethical influence in a free and natural manner . . . [they]  
offer ideological assistance, but not in the role of leaders."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 33] This, as we shall see in 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>, is the 
common anarchist position as regards the role of an anarchist 
group. 
</p><p>
The great strength of "synthesis" federations, obviously, is that 
they allow a wide and diverse range of viewpoints to be expressed 
within the organisation which can allow the development of 
political ideas and theories by constant discussion and debate. 
They allow the maximum amount of resources to be
made available to individuals and groups within the organisation
by increasing the number of members. This is why we find the original 
promoters of the "synthesis" arguing that <i>"that first step toward 
achieving unity in the anarchist movement which can lead to serious 
organisation is collective ideological work on a series of important 
problems that seek the clearest possible collective solution,"</i> 
discussing <i>"concrete questions"</i> rather than <i>"philosophical 
problems and abstract dissertations"</i> and <i>"suggest that there 
be a publication for discussion in every country where the problems 
in our ideology [sic!] and tactics can be fully discussed, regardless 
of how 'acute' or even 'taboo' it may be. The need for such a printed 
organ, as well as oral discussion, seems to us to be a 'must' because 
it is the practical way to try to achieve 'ideological unity', 
'tactical unity', and possibly organisation . . . A full and 
tolerant discussion of our problems . . . will create a basis for
understanding, not only among anarchists, but among different
conceptions of anarchism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 35]
</p><p>
The "synthesis" idea for anarchist organisation was taken up by those 
who opposed the Platform (see <a href="secJ3.html#secj33">next section</a>). 
For both Faure and Voline, the basic idea was the same, namely 
that the various tendencies in anarchism  must co-operate 
and work in the same organisation. However, there are differences 
between Voline's and Faure's points of view. The latter saw these 
various tendencies as a wealth in themselves and advocated that 
each tendency would gain from working together in a common 
organisation. From Voline's point of view, the emergence of these 
various tendencies was historically needed to discover the in-depth 
implications of anarchism in various settings (such as the economical, 
the social and individual life). However, it was the time to go back to 
anarchism as a whole, an anarchism considerably empowered by what 
each tendency could give it, and in which tendencies as such should 
dissolve. Moreover, these tendencies co-existed in every anarchist 
at various levels, so all anarchists should aggregate in an organisation
where these tendencies would disappear (both individually and 
organisationally, i.e. there would not be an "anarcho-syndicalist" 
specific tendency inside the organisation, and so forth).
</p><p>
The "synthesis" federation would be based on complete autonomy 
(within the basic principles of the Federation and Congress decisions, 
of course) for groups and individuals, so allowing all the different 
trends to work together and express their differences in a common 
front. The various groups would be organised in a federal structure,
combining to share resources in the struggle against state, capitalism
and other forms of oppression. This federal structure is organised 
at the local level through a "local union" (i.e. the groups in a town or
city), at the regional level (i.e. all groups in, say, Strathclyde are 
members of the same regional union) up to the "national" level (i.e. 
all groups in Scotland, say) and beyond.
</p><p>
As every group in the federation is autonomous, it can discuss, plan 
and initiate an action (such as campaign for a reform, against a 
social evil, and so on) without having to wait for others in the federation 
(or have to wait for instructions). This means that the local groups 
can respond quickly to issues and developments. This does not mean that 
each group works in isolation. These initiatives may gain federal support 
if local groups see the need. The federation can adopt an issue if 
it is raised at a federal conference and other groups agree to 
co-operate on that issue. Moreover, each group has the freedom 
<b>not</b> to participate on a specific issue while leaving others to do 
so. Thus groups can concentrate on what they are interested in most.
</p><p>
The programme and policies of the federation would be agreed at 
regular delegate meetings and congresses. The "synthesis" federation 
is managed at the federal level by "relations committees" made up
of people elected and mandated at the federation congresses. These
committees would have a purely administrative role, spreading 
information, suggestions and proposals coming from groups and 
individuals within the organisation, looking after the finances 
of the federation and so on. They do not have any more rights 
than any other member of the federation (i.e. they could not 
make a proposal as a committee, just as members of their local 
group or as individuals). These administrative committees are 
accountable to the federation and subject to both mandates and 
recall.
</p><p>
Most national sections of the <b>International Anarchist Federation</b> (IFA)
are good examples of successful federations which are heavily influenced by 
"synthesis" ideas (such as the French and Italian federations). Obviously, 
though, how effective a "synthesis" federation is depends upon how tolerant 
members are of each other and how seriously they take their responsibilities 
towards their federations and the agreements they make.
</p><p>
Of course, there are problems with most forms of organisation,
and the "synthesis" federation is no exception. While diversity can
strengthen an organisation by provoking debate, a too diverse grouping 
can often make it difficult to get things done. Platformist and other
critics of the "synthesis" federation argue that it can be turned 
into a talking shop and any common programme difficult to agree, 
never mind apply. For example, how can mutualists and communists 
agree on the ends, never mind the means, their organisation supports? 
One believes in co-operation within a (modified) market system and 
reforming capitalism away, while the other believes in the abolition 
of commodity production and money, seeing revolution as the means of so 
doing. Ultimately, all they could do would be to agree to disagree and 
thus any joint programmes and activity would be somewhat limited. It 
could, indeed, be argued that both Voline and Faure forgot essential 
points, namely what is this common denominator between the different 
kinds of anarchism, how do we achieve it and what is in it? For without 
this agreed common position, many synthesist organisations do end 
up becoming little more than talking shops, escaping from any 
social or organisational perspective. This seems to have been
the fate of many groups in Britain and America during the 1960s 
and 1970s, for example.
</p><p>
It is this (potential) disunity that lead the authors of 
the Platform to argue that <i>"[s]uch an organisation having 
incorporated heterogeneous theoretical and practical elements, 
would only be a mechanical assembly of individuals each having 
a different conception of all the questions of the anarchist 
movement, an assembly which would inevitably disintegrate on 
encountering reality."</i> [<b>The Organisational Platform of the 
Libertarian Communists</b>, p. 12] The Platform suggested 
<i>"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"</i> as a means of overcoming 
this problem, but that term provoked massive disagreement 
in anarchist circles (see 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj34">section J.3.4</a>). 
In reply to the 
Platform, supporters of the "synthesis" counter by 
pointing to the fact that "Platformist" groups are usually
very small, far smaller that "synthesis" federations (for 
example, compare the size of the <b>French Anarchist Federation</b> 
with, say, the Irish <b>Workers Solidarity Movement</b> or
the French-language <b>Alternative Libertaire</b>). This means, they argue,
that the Platform does not, in fact, lead to a more effective
organisation, regardless of the claims of its supporters.
Moreover, they argue that the requirements for <i>"Theoretical
and Tactical Unity"</i> help ensure a small organisation as 
differences would express themselves in splits rather than 
constructive activity. Needless to say, the discussion
continues within the movement on this issue!
</p><p>
What can be said is that this potential problem within 
"synthesisism" has been the cause of some organisations
failing or becoming little more than talking shops, with 
each group doing its own thing and so making co-ordination 
pointless as any agreements made would be ignored. Most supporters 
of the synthesis would argue that this is not what the theory 
aims for and that the problem lies in misunderstanding it
rather than in the theory itself (as can be seen from mainland 
European, "synthesis" inspired federations can be <b>very</b> 
successful). Non-supporters are more critical, with some 
supporting the "Platform" as a more effective means of 
organising to spread anarchist ideas and influence (see 
the <a href="secJ3.html#secj33">next section</a>). 
Other social anarchists create the 
"class struggle" type of  federation  (this is a common 
organisational form in Britain, for example) as discussed 
in <a href="secJ3.html#secj35">section J.3.5</a>.
</p>

<a name="secj33"><h2>J.3.3 What is the "Platform"?</h2></a>

<p>
The Platform is a current within anarcho-communism which has specific 
suggestions on the nature and form which an anarchist federation should
take. Its roots lie in the Russian anarchist movement, a section of 
which, in 1926, published <i><b>"The Organisational Platform of the 
Libertarian Communists"</i></b> when in exile from the Bolshevik 
dictatorship. The authors of the work included Nestor Makhno, Peter 
Arshinov and Ida Mett. At the time it provoked intense debate (and 
still does in many anarchist circles) between supporters of the 
Platform (usually called "Platformists") and those who oppose it
(which includes other communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and
supporters of the "synthesis"). We will discuss why many anarchists 
oppose the Platform in the <a href="secJ3.html#secj34">next section</a>. 
Here we discuss what the Platform argued for.
</p><p>
Like the "synthesis" federation (see 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj32">last section</a>), the Platform 
was created in response to the experiences of the Russian Revolution. 
The authors of the Platform (like Voline and other supporters of the 
"synthesis") had participated in that Revolution and saw all their 
work, hopes and dreams fail as the Bolshevik state triumphed and 
destroyed any chances of socialism by undermining soviet democracy, 
workers' self-management of production, trade union democracy as 
well as fundamental individual freedoms and rights (see the
<a href="secH6.html">section H.6</a> for details). Moreover, the 
authors of the Platform had been leading activists in the Makhnovist 
movement in the Ukraine which had successfully resisted both White 
and Red armies in the name of working class self-determination and 
anarchism (see the appendix 
<a href="append46.html">"Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism? "</a>). 
Facing the same 
problems of the Bolshevik government, the Makhnovists had actively 
encouraged popular self-management and organisation, freedom of 
speech and of association, and so on, whereas the Bolsheviks had 
not. Thus they were aware that anarchist ideas not only worked 
in practice, but that the claims of Leninists who maintained 
that Bolshevism (and the policies it introduced at the time) 
was the only "practical" response to the problems facing a 
revolution were false.
</p><p>
They wrote the pamphlet in order to examine why the anarchist movement 
had failed to build on its successes in gaining influence within the 
working class. As can be seen from libertarian participation in the 
factory committee movement, where workers organised self-management 
in their workplaces and anarchist ideas had proven to be both popular 
and practical. While repression by the Bolsheviks did play a part 
in this failure, it did not explain everything. Also important, in 
the eyes of the Platform authors, was the lack of anarchist organisation 
<b>before</b> the 
revolution:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"It is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably 
positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the facing up to 
the social revolution, and finally the heroism and innumerable sacrifices 
borne by the anarchists in the struggle for anarchist communism, the 
anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and has appeared, 
very often, in the history of working class struggles as a small event, an 
episode, and not an important factor."</i> [<b>Organisational Platform of the 
Libertarian Communists</b>, p. 11]
</blockquote></p><p>
This weakness in the movement derived, they argued, from a number of 
causes, the main one being <i>"the absence of organisational principles 
and practices"</i> within the anarchist movement. This resulted in an
anarchist movement <i>"represented by several local organisations 
advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives 
for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually 
disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them."</i> This 
explained the <i>"contradiction between the positive and incontestable 
substance of libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in which the 
anarchist movement vegetates."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 11] For anyone 
familiar with the anarchist movement in many countries, these words will 
still strike home. Thus the Platform still appears to many anarchists a 
relevant and important document, even if they are not Platformists.
</p><p>
The author's of the Platform proposed a solution to this problem, namely 
the creation of a new type of anarchist organisation. This organisation 
would be based upon communist-anarchist ideas exclusively, while 
recognising syndicalism as a principal method of struggle. Like most
anarchists, the Platform placed class and class struggle as the centre 
of their analysis, recognising that the <i>"social and political regime of 
all states is above all the product of class struggle . . . The slightest 
change in the course of the battle of classes, in the relative locations 
of the forces of the class struggle, produces continuous modifications 
in the fabric and structure of society."</i> Again, like most anarchists, 
the Platform aimed to <i>"transform the present bourgeois capitalist 
society into a society which assures the workers the products of the 
labours, their liberty, independence, and social and political equality"</i>, 
one based on a <i>"workers organisations of production and consumption, 
united federatively and self-administering."</i> The <i>"birth, the 
blossoming, and the realisation of anarchist ideas have their roots 
in the life and the struggle of the working masses and are inseparable 
bound to their fate."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 14, p. 15, p. 19 and p. 15] 
Again, most anarchists (particularly social anarchists) would agree -- 
anarchist ideas will (and have) wither when isolated from working class 
life since only working class people, the vast majority,  can create a 
free society and anarchist ideas are expressions of working class 
experience (remove the experience and the ideas do not develop as 
they should).
</p><p>
In order to create such a free society it is necessary, argue the 
Platformists, <i>"to work in two directions: on the one hand towards 
the selection and grouping of revolutionary worker and peasant 
forces on a libertarian communist theoretical basis (a specifically 
libertarian communist organisation); on the other hand, towards 
regrouping revolutionary workers and peasants on an economic base 
of production and consumption (revolutionary workers and peasants 
organised around production [i.e. syndicalism]; workers and free 
peasants co-operatives)."</i> Again, most anarchists would agree 
with this along with the argument that <i>"anarchism should become 
the leading concept of revolution . . . The leading position of 
anarchist ideas in the revolution suggests an orientation of events 
after anarchist theory. However, this theoretical driving force 
should not be confused with the political leadership of the statist 
parties which leads finally to State Power."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 20 and p. 21] 
</p><p>
This <i>"leadership of ideas"</i> (as it has come to be known) 
would aim at developing and co-ordinating libertarian feelings 
already existing within social struggle. <i>"Although the masses,"</i> 
explained the Platform, <i>"express themselves profoundly in social 
movements in terms of anarchist tendencies and tenets, these . . . 
do however remain dispersed, being uncoordinated, and consequently 
do not lead to the . . . preserving [of] the anarchist orientation 
of the social revolution."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 21] The Platform 
argued that a specific anarchist organisation was required to ensure 
that the libertarian tendencies initially expressed in any social 
revolution or movement (for example, free federation, self-management 
in mass assemblies, mandating of delegates, decentralisation, etc.) 
do not get undermined by statists and authoritarians who have their 
own agendas. This would be done by actively working in mass organisation
and winning people to libertarian ideas and practices by argument
(see  <a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>).
</p><p>
However, these principles do not, in themselves, determine a Platformist 
organisation. After all, most anarcho-syndicalists and non-Platformist 
communist-anarchists would agree with these positions. The main point 
which distinguishes the Platform is its position on how an anarchist 
organisation should be structured and work. This is sketched in the 
<i>"Organisational Section,"</i> the shortest and most contentious part 
of the whole work. They called this the <b>General Union of Anarchists</b> 
and where they introduced the concepts of <i><b>"Theoretical and Tactical 
Unity"</i></b> and <b><i>"Collective Responsibility,"</i></b> concepts 
which are unique to the Platform. Even today within the anarchist movement 
these are contentious ideas so it is worth exploring them in a little 
more detail.
</p><p>
By <i>"Theoretical Unity"</i> the Platform meant any anarchist organisation 
must come to an agreement on the theory upon which it is based. In 
other words, that members of the organisation must agree on a certain
number of basic points, such as class struggle, social revolution and 
libertarian communism, and so on. An organisation in which half the 
members thought that union struggles were important and the other half 
that they were a waste of time would not be effective as the membership
would spend all their time arguing with themselves.  While most 
Platformists admit that everyone will not agree on everything,
they think it is important to reach as much agreement as possible,
and to translate this into action. Once a theoretical position is
reached, the members have to argue it  in public (even if they 
initially opposed it within the organisation but they do have
the right to get the decision of the organisation changed by 
internal discussion). Which brings us to <i>"Tactical Unity"</i> by 
which the Platform meant that the members of an organisation should 
struggle together <b>as an organised force</b> rather than as individuals. 
Once a strategy has been agreed by the Union, all members would work 
towards ensuring its success (even if they initially opposed it). 
In this way resources and time are concentrated in a common 
direction, towards an agreed objective.
</p><p>
Thus <i>"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"</i> means an anarchist organisation
that agrees specific ideas and the means of applying them. The 
Platform's basic assumption is that there is a link between coherency 
and efficiency. By increasing the coherency of the organisation by 
making collective decisions and applying them, the Platform argues
that this will increase the influence of anarchist ideas. Without this,
they argue, more organised groups (such as Leninist ones) would
be in a better position to have their arguments heard and listened to 
than anarchists would. Anarchists cannot be complacent, and rely on 
the hope that the obvious strength and rightness of our ideas will shine 
through and win the day. As history shows, this rarely happens and 
when it does, the authoritarians are usually in positions of power to
crush the emerging anarchist influence (this was the case in Russia,
for example). Platformists argue that the world we live in is the 
product of struggles between competing ideas of how society should 
be organised and if the anarchist voice is weak, quiet and disorganised 
it will not be heard and other arguments, other perspectives, will win 
the day.
</p><p>
Which brings us to <i>"Collective Responsibility,"</i> which the Platform 
defines as <i>"the entire Union will be responsible for the political 
and revolutionary activity of each member; in the same way, each 
member will be responsible for the political and revolutionary 
activity of the Union."</i> In short, that each member should support 
the decisions made by the organisation and that each member should
take part in the process of collective decision making process. 
Without this, argue Platformists, any decisions made will be paper 
ones as individuals and groups would ignore the agreements made by 
the federation (the Platform calls this <i>"the tactic of irresponsible 
individualism"</i>). [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 32] With <i>"Collective 
Responsibility,"</i> the strength of all the individuals that make 
up the group is magnified and collectively applied. 
</p><p>
The last principle in the <i>"Organisational Section"</i> of the Platform 
is <i>"Federalism,"</i> which it defined as <i>"the free agreement of 
individuals and organisations to work collectively towards a common 
objective"</i> and which <i>"reconciles the independence and 
initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the 
common cause."</i> However, the Platform argued that this principle 
has been <i>"deformed"</i> within the movement to mean the <i>"right"</i> 
to <i>"manifest one's 'ego,' without obligation to account for duties as 
regards the organisation"</i> one is a member of.  In order to overcome this
problem, they stress that <i>"the federalist type of anarchist organisation,
while recognising each member's rights to independence, free opinion,
individual liberty and initiative, requires each member to undertake
fixed organisation duties, and demands execution of communal
decisions."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 33 and pp. 33-4]
</p><p>
As part of their solution to the problem of anarchist organisation, 
the Platform suggested that each group would have <i>"its secretariat, 
executing and guiding theoretically the political and technical
work of the organisation."</i> Moreover, the Platform urged the 
creation of an <i>"<b>executive committee of the Union</b>"</i> 
which would <i>"be in charge"</i> of <i>"the execution of 
decisions taken by the Union with which it is
entrusted; the theoretical and organisational orientation of the
activity of isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical
positions and the general tactical lines of the Union; the monitoring
of the general state of the movement; the maintenance of working and
organisational links between all the organisations in the Union; and 
with other organisation."</i> The rights, responsibilities and practical
tasks of the executive committee are fixed by the congress of the 
Union. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 34] 
</p><p>
This suggestion, unsurprisingly, meet with strong disapproval by most 
anarchists, as we will see in the 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj34">next section</a>,
who argued that this would turn the anarchist movement into a
centralised, hierarchical party similar to the Bolsheviks. Needless
to say, supporters of the Platform reject this argument and point
out that the Platform itself is not written in stone and needs to
be discussed fully and modified as required. In fact, few, if any,
Platformist groups, do have this <i>"secretariat"</i> structure (it 
could, in fact, be argued that there are no actual "Platformist" 
groups, rather groups influenced by the Platform, namely on the issues
of <i>"Theoretical and Tactical Unity"</i> and <i>"Collective 
Responsibility"</i>).
</p><p>
Similarly, most modern day Platformists reject the idea of gathering
all anarchists into one organisation. The original Platform seemed 
to imply that the <b>General Union</b> would be an umbrella organisation, 
made up of different groups and individuals. Most Platformists would 
argue that not only will there never be one organisation which 
encompasses everyone, they do not think it necessary. Instead they
envisage the existence of a number of organisations, each internally 
unified, each co-operating with each other where possible, a much 
more amorphous and fluid entity than a <b>General Union of Anarchists</b>.
</p><p>
As well as the original Platform, most Platformists place the 
<b>Manifesto of Libertarian Communism</b> by Georges Fontenis and 
<b>Towards a Fresh Revolution</b> by the <i>"Friends of Durruti"</i> 
as landmark texts in the Platformist tradition. A few anarcho-syndicalists 
question this last claim, arguing that the <i>"Friends of Durruti"</i> 
manifesto has strong similarities with the CNT's pre-1936 position 
on revolution and thus is an anarcho-syndicalist document, going 
back to the position the CNT ignored after July 19th, 1936. 
Alexandre Skirda's book <b>Facing the Enemy</b> contains the key
documents on the original Platformists (including the original 
draft Platform, supplementary documents clarifying issues and 
polemics against critiques). There are numerous Platformist and 
Platformist influenced organisations in the world today, such as
the Irish <b>Workers Solidarity Movement</b> and Italian <b>Federation
of Anarchist Communists</b>.
</p><p>
In the <a href="secJ3.html#secj34">next section</a> 
we discuss the objections that most anarchists 
have towards the Platform.
</p>

<a name="secj34"><h2>J.3.4 Why do many anarchists oppose the "Platform"?</h2></a>

<p>
When the "Platform" was published it provoked a massive amount of debate
and comment, the majority of it critical. Most of famous anarchists
rejected the Platform. Indeed, only Nestor Makhno (who co-authored the
work) supported its proposals, with (among others) Alexander Berkman, 
Emma Goldman, Voline, G.P. Maximoff, Luigi Fabbri, Camilo Berneri and
Errico Malatesta rejecting its suggestions on how anarchists should 
organise. Some argued that the Platform was trying to <i>"Bolshevise"</i>
anarchism (<i>""They are only one step away from bolshevism."</i> 
[<i>"The Reply by Several Russian Anarchists"</i>, pp. 32-6, 
<b>Constructive Anarchism</b>, G.P. Maximoff (ed.), pp. 36]). Others, such
as Malatesta, suggested that the authors were too impressed by the 
apparent "success" of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Since then, it has 
continued to provoke a lot of debate in anarchist circles. So why do 
so many anarchists  oppose the Platform?
</p><p>
While many of the anti-Platformists made points about most parts of the
Platform (both Maximoff and Voline pointed out that while the Platform
denied the need of a <i>"Transitional Period"</i> in theory, it accepted 
it in practice, for example) the main bone of contention was found in the
<i>"Organisational Section"</i> with its call for <i>"Tactical and Theoretical 
Unity,"</i> <i>"Collective Responsibility"</i> and group and executive 
<i>"secretariats"</i> guiding the organisation. Here most anarchists found 
ideas they considered incompatible with libertarian ideas. We will concentrate 
on this issue as it is usually considered as the most important.
</p><p>
Today, in some quarters of the libertarian movement, the Platformists are 
often dismissed as "would-be leaders." Yet this was not where Malatesta 
and other critics of the Platform took issue. Malatesta and Maximoff both
argued that, to use Maximoff's words, anarchists should <i>"go into the
masses. . . , work[ing] with them, struggle for their soul, and attempt to 
win it <b>ideologically</b> [sic!] and give it guidance."</i> So the 
question was <i>"not the rejection of <b>leadership,</b> but making 
certain it is <b>free</b> and <b>natural.</b>"</i> [<b>Constructive 
Anarchism</b>, p. 19] Moreover, as Maximoff noted, the "synthesis" 
anarchists came to the same conclusion. Thus all sides of the debate 
accepted that anarchists should take the lead. The question, as 
Malatesta and the others saw it, was not whether to lead, but rather 
<b>how</b> you should lead - a fairly important distinction. 
</p><p>
Malatesta posed two alternatives, either you <i>"provide leadership by 
advice and example leaving people themselves to . . . adopt our methods 
and solutions if these are, or seem to be, better than those suggested 
and carried out by others"</i> or you can <i>"direct by taking over 
command, that is by becoming a government."</i> He asked the Platformists: 
<i>"In which manner do you wish to direct?"</i> While he thought, from 
his knowledge of Makhno and his work, that the answer would be the first 
option, he was <i>"assailed by doubt that [Makhno] would also like to see, 
within the general movement, a central body that would, in an authoritarian 
manner, dictate the theoretical and practical programme for the revolution."</i> 
This was because of the <i>"Executive Committee"</i> in the Platform which 
would <i>"give ideological and organisational direction to the association."</i> 
[<b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 108 and p. 110]
</p><p>
Maximoff made the same point, arguing that the Platform implied that 
anarchists in the unions are responsible to the anarchist federation, 
<b>not</b> to the union assemblies that elected them. As he put it, 
according to the Platform anarchists <i>"are to join the Trades Unions 
with ready-made recipes and are to carry out their plans, if necessary, 
against the will of the Unions themselves."</i> This was just one 
example of a general problem, namely that the Platform <i>"places 
its Party on the same height as the Bolsheviks do, i.e., it places 
the interests of the Party above the interests of the masses since 
the Party has the monopoly of understanding these interests."</i> 
[<b>Constructive Anarchism</b>, p. 19 and p. 18] This flowed from 
the Platform arguing that anarchists must <i>"enter into revolutionary 
trade unions as an organised force, responsible to accomplish work 
in the union before the general anarchist organisation and 
orientated by the latter."</i> However, Maximoff's argument may be 
considered harsh as the Platform also argued that anarchism <i>"aspires 
neither to political power nor dictatorship"</i> and so they would hardly 
be urging the opposite principles within the trade union movement. [<b>The
Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists</b>, p. 25 and p. 21] 
If we take the Platform's comments within a context informed by the
<i>"leadership of ideas"</i> concept (see 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>) then what they meant
was simply that the anarchist group would convince the union members 
of  the validity of their ideas by argument which was something Maximoff 
did not disagree with. In short, the disagreement 
becomes one of unclear (or bad) use of language by the Platform's 
authors.
</p><p>
Despite many efforts and many letters on the subject (in particular 
between Malatesta and Makhno) the question of "leadership" could 
not be clarified to either side's satisfaction, in part because there 
was an additional issue in dispute. This was the related issue of 
organisational principles (which in themselves make up the defining 
part of the original Platform). Malatesta argued that this did not conform
with anarchist methods and principles, and so could not <i>"help bring
about the triumph of anarchism."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 97]
This was because of two main reasons, the first being the issue of the 
Platform's "secretariats" and "executive committee" and the issue of
"Collective Responsibility." We will take each in turn.
</p><p>
With an structure based round "secretariats" and "executive committees"
the <i>"will of the [General] Union [of Anarchists] can only mean the will
of the majority, expressed through congresses which nominate and 
control the <b>Executive Committee</b> and decide on all important issues.
Naturally, the congresses would consist of representatives elected by
the majority of member groups . . . So, in the best of cases, the 
decisions would be taken by a majority of a majority, and this could 
easily, especially when the opposing opinions are more than two, 
represent only a minority."</i>  This, Malatesta argued, <i>"comes down 
to a pure majority system, to pure parliamentarianism"</i> and so 
non-anarchist in nature. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 100]
</p><p>
As long as a Platformist federation is based on <i>"secretariats"</i> 
and <i>"executive committees"</i> directing the activity and development 
of the organisation, this critique is valid. In such a system, as 
these bodies control the organisation and members are expected to 
follow their decisions (due to <i>"theoretical and tactical unity"</i> 
and <i>"collective responsibility"</i>) they are, in effect, the 
government of the association. While this government may be
elected and accountable, it is still a government simply because 
these bodies have executive power. As Maximoff argued, individual 
initiative in the Platform <i>"has a special character . . . Each 
organisation (i.e. association of members with the right to individual
initiative) has its secretariat which . . . <b>directs</b> the ideological, 
political and technical activities of the organisation . . . In what, 
then, consists the self-reliant activities of the rank-and-file members? 
Apparently in one thing: initiative to obey the secretariat and carry
out its directives."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 18] This seems to be the 
logical conclusion of the structure suggested by the Platform. <i>"The 
spirit,"</i> argued Malatesta, <i>"the tendency remains authoritarian 
and the educational effect would remain anti-anarchist."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 98] 
</p><p>
Malatesta, in contrast, argued that an anarchist organisation must be
based on the <i>"[f]ull autonomy, full independence and therefore the
full responsibility of individuals and groups"</i> with all organisational
work done <i>"freely, in such a way that the thought and initiative of
individuals is not obstructed."</i> The individual members of such an
organisation <i>"express any opinion and use any tactic which is not
in contradiction with accepted principles and which does not harm
the activities of others."</i> Moreover, the administrative bodies such
organisations nominate would <i>"have no executive powers, have no
directive powers"</i> leaving it up to the groups and their federal 
meetings to decide their own fates. The congresses of such organisations 
would be <i>"free from any kind of authoritarianism, because they do not 
lay down the law; they do not impose their own resolutions on others . . . 
and do not become binding and enforceable except on those who accept them."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 101, p. 102 and p. 101] Such an organisation does not 
exclude collective decisions and self-assumed obligations, rather
it is based upon them.
</p><p>
Most groups inspired by the Platform, however, seem to reject this
aspect of its organisational suggestions. Instead of "secretariats" and
"executive committees" they have regular conferences and meetings
to reach collective decisions on issues and practice unity that way.
Thus the <b>really</b> important issue is of <i>"theoretical and tactical 
unity"</i> and <i>"collective responsibility,"</i> rather than ithe 
structure suggested by the Platform. Indeed, this issue was the main 
topic in Makhno's letter to Malatesta, for example, and so we would be 
justified in saying that this is the key issue dividing "Platformists" 
from other anarchists. 
</p><p>
So in what way did Malatesta disagree with this concept? As we 
mentioned in the <a href="secJ3.html#secj33">last section</a>, the 
Platform defined the idea of 
 "Collective Responsibility" as <i>"the entire Union will be responsible 
for the political and revolutionary activity of each member; in the 
same way, each member will be responsible for the political and 
revolutionary activity of the Union."</i> To which Malatesta replied:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"But if the Union is responsible for what each member does, how 
can it leave to its members and to the various groups the freedom 
to apply the common programme in the way they think best? How can
one be responsible for an action if it does not have the means to
prevent it? Therefore, the Union and in its name the Executive
Committee, would need to monitor the action of the individual
member and order them what to do and what not to do; and since
disapproval after the event cannot put right a previously accepted
responsibility, no-one would be able to do anything at all before
having obtained the go-ahead, the permission of the committee.
And, on the other hand, can an individual accept responsibility
for the actions of a collectivity before knowing what it will do
and if he cannot prevent it doing what he disapproves of?"</i> [<b>Op. 
Cit.</b>, p. 99]
</blockquote></p><p>
In other words, the term <i>"collective responsibility"</i> (if taken 
literally) implies a highly inefficient and somewhat authoritarian 
mode of organisation. Before any action could be undertaken, the
organisation would have to be consulted and this would crush
individual, group and local initiative. The organisation would
respond slowly to developing situations, if at all, and this response
would not be informed by first hand knowledge and experience. 
Moreover, this form of organisation implies a surrendering of
individual judgement, as members would have to <i>"submit to the 
decisions of the majority before they have even heard what those 
might be."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 101] In the end, all a 
member could do would be to leave the organisation if they disagree 
with a tactic or position and could not bring themselves to further 
it by their actions.
</p><p>
This structure also suggests that the Platform's commitment to
federalism is in words only. As most anarchists critical of the 
Platform argued, while its authors affirm federalist principles 
they, in fact, <i>"outline a perfectly centralised organisation with 
an Executive Committee that has responsibility to give ideological 
and organisational direction to the different anarchist organisations, 
which in turn will direct the professional organisations of the 
workers."</i> [<i>"The Reply by Several Russian Anarchists"</i>, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 35-6] 
</p><p>
Thus it is likely that "Collective Responsibility" taken to its logical
conclusion would actually <b>hinder</b> anarchist work by being too 
bureaucratic and slow. However, let us assume that by applying collective 
responsibility as well as tactical and theoretical unity, anarchist 
resources and time will be more efficiently utilised. What is the point 
of being "efficient" if the collective decision reached is wrong or is 
inapplicable to many areas? Rather than local groups applying their 
knowledge of local conditions and developing theories and policies that 
reflect these conditions (and co-operating from the bottom up), they may
be forced to apply inappropriate policies due to the "Unity" of the 
Platformist organisation. It is true that Makhno argued that the 
<i>"activities of local organisations can be adapted, as far as possible, 
to suit local conditions"</i> but only if they are <i>"consonant with the 
pattern of the overall organisational practice of the Union of 
anarchists covering the whole country."</i> [<b>The Struggle Against 
the State and Other Essays</b>, p. 62] Which still begs the question 
on the nature of the Platform's unity (however, it does suggest 
that the Platform's position may be less extreme than might be 
implied by the text, as we will discuss). That is why anarchists have 
traditionally supported federalism and free agreement within their 
organisations, to take into account the real needs of localities.
</p><p>
If we do not take the Platform's definition of "Collective
Responsibility" literally or to its logical extreme (as Makhno's
comments suggest) then the differences between Platformists
and non-Platformists may not be that far. As Malatesta pointed
out in his reply to Makhno's letter:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"I accept and support the view that anyone who associates and
co-operates with others for a common purpose must feel the need
to co-ordinate his [or her] actions with those of his [or her] 
fellow members and do nothing that harms the work of others . . . 
and respect the agreements that have been made . . . [Moreover] I
maintain that those who do not feel and do not practice that
duty should be thrown out of the association.
</p><p>
"Perhaps, speaking of collective responsibility, you mean precisely
that accord and solidarity that must exist among members of an
association. And if that is so, your expression amounts . . . to
an incorrect use of language, but basically it would only be an
unimportant question of wording and agreement would soon be
reached."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 107-8]
</p><p></blockquote>
This, indeed, seems to be the way that most Platformist organisations
do operate. They have agreed broad theoretical and tactical positions 
on various subjects (such as, for example, the nature of trade unions
and how anarchists relate to them) while leaving it to local groups
to act within these guidelines. Moreover, the local groups do not
have to report to the organisation before embarking on an activity.
In other words, most Platformist groups do not take the Platform
literally and so many differences are, to a large degree, a question 
of wording. As two supporters of the Platform note:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The Platform doesn't go into detail about how collective 
responsibility works in practice. There are issues it leaves 
untouched such as the question of people who oppose the majority 
view. We would argue that obviously people who oppose the view of 
the majority have a right to express their own views, however in 
doing so they must make clear that they don't represent the view 
of the organisation. If a group of people within the organisation 
oppose the majority decision they have the right to organise 
and distribute information so that their arguments can be heard 
within the organisation as a whole. Part of our anarchism is the 
belief that debate and disagreement, freedom and openness strengthens 
both the individual and the group to which she or he belongs."</i> 
[Aileen O'Carroll and Alan MacSimoin, <i>"The Platform"</i>, pp. 29-31, 
<b>Red and Black Revolution</b>, no. 4, p. 30]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
While many anarchists are critical of Platformist groups for being
too centralised for their liking, it is the case that the Platform has
influenced many anarchist organisations, even non-Platformist ones
(this can be seen in the "class struggle" groups discussed in the 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj35">next section</a>). 
This influence has been both ways, with the criticism the 
original Platform was subjected to having had an effect on how 
Platformist groups have developed. This, of course, does not imply 
that there is little or no difference between Platformists and other 
anarchists. Platformist groups tend to stress "collective responsibility" 
and "theoretical and tactical unity" more than others, which has
caused problems when Platformists have worked within "synthesis"
organisations (as was the case in France, for example, which resulted
in much bad-feeling between Platformists and others).
</p><p>
<b>Constructive Anarchism</b> by the leading Russian anarcho-syndicalist 
G.P. Maximoff gathers all the relevant documents in one place. As well 
as Maximoff's critique of the Platform, it includes the "synthesis"  
reply, Malatesta's review and subssequent exchange of letters between him 
and Makhno. <b>The Anarchist Revolution</b> also contains Malatesta's 
article and the exchange of letters between him and Makhno.
</p>

<a name="secj35"><h2>J.3.5 Are there other kinds of anarchist federation?</h2></a>

<p>
Yes. Another type of anarchist federation is what we term the <b><i>"class 
struggle"</b></i> group. Many local anarchist groups in Britain, for 
example, organise in this fashion. They use the term "class struggle" 
to indicate that their anarchism is based on collective working class 
resistance as opposed to reforming capitalism via lifestyle changes and 
the support of, say, co-operatives (many "class struggle" anarchists do 
these things, of course, but they are aware that they cannot create an 
anarchist society by so doing). We follow this use of the term here. And 
just to stress the point again, our use of "class struggle" to describe
this type of anarchist group does not imply that "synthesis" or "Platformist" 
do not support the class struggle. They do!
</p><p>
This kind of group is half-way between the "synthesis" and the 
"Platform." The "class struggle" group agrees with the "synthesis" 
in so far as it is important to have a diverse viewpoints within 
a federation and that it would be a mistake to try to impose a 
common-line on different groups in different circumstances as the 
Platform does. However, like the "Platform," the class struggle 
group recognises that there is little point in creating a forced 
union between totally different strands of anarchism. Thus the 
"class struggle" group rejects the idea that individualist or 
mutualist anarchists should be part of the same organisation 
as anarchist communists or syndicalists or that anarcho-pacifists 
should join forces with non-pacifists. Thus the "class struggle" 
group acknowledges that an organisation which contains viewpoints 
which are dramatically opposed can lead to pointless debates and 
paralysis of action due to the impossibilities of overcoming those 
differences.
</p><p>
Instead, the "class struggle" group agrees a common set of <b><i>"aims and 
principles"</i></b> which are the basic terms of agreement within the 
federation. If an individual or group does not agree with this statement 
then they cannot join. If they are members and try to change this statement 
and cannot get the others to agree its modification, then they are morally 
bound to leave the organisation. In other words, there is a framework 
within which individuals and groups apply their own ideas and their 
interpretation of agreed policies. It means that individuals in 
a group and the groups within a federation have something to base their 
local activity on, something which has been agreed collectively. There 
would be a common thread to activities and a guide to action (particularly 
in situations were a group or federation meeting cannot be called). In this 
way individual initiative and co-operation can be reconciled, without 
hindering either. In addition, the <b><i>"aims and principles"</i></b> 
shows potential members where the anarchist group was coming from. 
</p><p>
In this way the "class struggle" group solves one of the key problems 
with the "synthesis" grouping, namely that any such basic statement of
political ideas would be hard to agree and be so watered down as to
be almost useless (for example, a federation combining individualist and
communist anarchists would find it impossible to agree on such things as
the necessity for revolution, communal ownership, and so on). By clearly
stating its ideas, the "class struggle" group ensures a common basis for
activity and discussion.
</p><p>
Such a federation, like all anarchist groups, would be based upon regular
assemblies locally and in frequent regional, national, etc., conferences 
to continually re-evaluate policies, tactics, strategies and goals. In
addition, such meetings prevent power from collecting in the higher
administration committees created to co-ordinate activity. The regular
conferences aim to create federation policies on specific topics and
agree common strategies. Such policies, once agreed, are morally binding
on the membership, who can review and revise them as required at a later
stage but cannot take action which would hinder their application (they
do not have to apply them, if they consider them as a big mistake). 
</p><p>
For example, minorities in such a federation can pursue their own policies 
as long as they clearly state that theirs is a minority position and does
not contradict the federation's aims and principles. In this way the anarchist 
federation combines united action and dissent, for no general policy will 
be applicable in all circumstances and it is better for minorities to ignore
policies which they know will make even greater problems in their area. As 
long as their actions and policies do not contradict the federation's basic 
political ideas, then diversity is an essential means for ensuring that the 
best tactic and ideas are be identified. 
</p>

<a name="secj36"><h2>J.3.6 What role do these groups play in anarchist theory?</h2></a>

<p>
The aim of anarchist groups and federations is to spread libertarian 
ideas within society and within social movements. They aim to convince 
people of the validity of anarchist ideas and analysis, of the need for 
a libertarian transformation of society and of themselves by working with 
others as equals. Such groups are convinced that  (to use Murray 
Bookchin's words) <i>"anarcho-communism cannot remain a mere 
mood or tendency, wafting in the air like a cultural ambience. 
It must be organised -- indeed <b>well-organised</b> -- if it is 
effectively articulate and spread this new sensibility; it must have a 
coherent theory and extensive literature; it must be capable of duelling 
with the authoritarian movements that try to denature the intuitive 
libertarian impulses of our time and channel social unrest into 
hierarchical forms of organisation."</i> [<b>Looking Back at Spain"</b>, 
p. 90]
</p><p>
These groups and federations play a key role in anarchist theory. 
This is because anarchists are well aware that there are different 
levels of knowledge and consciousness in society. While people learn 
through struggle and their own experiences, different people 
develop at different speeds, that each individual is unique and 
is subject to different influences. As one pamphlet by the British 
<b>Anarchist Federation</b> puts it, the <i>"experiences of working class 
life constantly lead to the development of ideas and actions which 
question the established order . . . At the same time, different 
sections of the working class reach different degrees of 
consciousness."</i> [<b>The Role of the Revolutionary Organisation</b>, 
p. 13] This can easily be seen from any group of individuals of the same 
class or even community. Some are anarchists, others Marxists, some 
social democrats/labourites, others conservatives, others liberals, 
most "apolitical," some support trade unions, others are against and 
so on.
</p><p>
Because we are aware that we are one tendency among many, 
anarchists organise as anarchists to influence social struggle. Only
when anarchists ideas are accepted by the vast majority will an 
anarchist society be possible. We wish, in other words, to win the 
most widespread understanding and influence for anarchist ideas 
and methods in the working class and in society, primarily because
we believe that these alone will ensure a successful revolutionary
transformation of society. Hence Malatesta:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"anarchists, convinced of the validity of our programme, must 
strive to acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw the 
movement towards the realisation of our ideals. But such influence 
must be won by doing more and better than others, and will be useful 
if won in that way . . . we must deepen, develop and 
propagate our ideas and co-ordinate our forces in a common action. 
We must act within the labour movement to prevent it being limited 
to and corrupted by the exclusive pursuit of small improvements 
compatible with the capitalist system . . . We must work with . . . 
[all the] masses to awaken the spirit of revolt and the desire for 
a free and happy life. We must initiate and support all movements 
that tend to weaken the forces of the State and of capitalism and 
to raise the mental level and material conditions of the workers."</i> 
[<b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 109]</blockquote>
</p><p>
Anarchist organisation exists to help the process by which people 
come to anarchist conclusions. It aims to make explicit the feelings 
and thoughts that people have (such as, wage slavery is hell, that the 
state exists to oppress people and so on) by exposing as wrong 
common justifications for existing society and social relationships 
by a process of debate and providing a vision of something better. In 
other words, anarchist organisations seek to explain and clarify what 
is happening in society and show why anarchism is the only real 
solution to social problems. As part of this, we also have combat 
wrong ideas such as Liberalism, Social Democracy, Leninism, 
right-wing popularism and so on, indicating why these 
proposed solutions are false. In addition, an anarchist 
organisation must also be a 'collective memory' for the oppressed, 
keeping alive and developing the traditions of the labour and 
radical movements as well as anarchism so that new generations of 
libertarians have a body of experience to build upon and use in 
their struggles.
</p><p>
Anarchist organisations see themselves in the role of aiders, <b>not</b> 
leaders. As Voline argued, the minority which is politically aware 
<i>"should intervene. But, in every place and under all 
circumstances, . . . [they] should freely participate in the common 
work, <b>as true collaborators, not as dictators.</b> It is necessary that 
they especially create an example, and employ themselves . . . without 
dominating, subjugating, or oppressing anyone . . . Accordingly to 
the libertarian thesis, it is the labouring masses themselves, who, 
by means of the various class organisations, factory committees, 
industrial and agricultural unions, co-operatives, et cetera, federated . . . 
should apply themselves everywhere, to solving the problems of 
waging the Revolution . . . As for the 'elite' [i.e. the politically aware],
their role, according to the libertarians, is to <b>help</b> the masses, 
enlighten them, teach them, give them necessary advice, impel them 
to take initiative, provide them with an example, and support them 
in their action -- <b>but not to direct them governmentally.</b>"</i> [<b>The 
Unknown Revolution</b>, pp. 177-8]
</p><p>
This role is usually called providing a <b><i>"leadership of ideas"</i></b>.
Anarchists stress the difference of this concept with authoritarian 
notions of "leadership" such as Leninist ones. While both anarchist
and Leninist organisations exist to overcome the problem of "uneven
development" within the working class, the aims, role and structure of
these groups could not be more different (as discussed in 
<a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>, anarchists reject the assumptions
and practice of vanguardism as incompatible with genuine socialism). 
</p><p>
Anarchist groups are needed for, no matter how much people change through
struggle, it is not enough in itself (if it were, we would be living in
an anarchist society now!). So anarchists stress, as well as self-organisation,
self-liberation and self-education through struggle developing libertarian 
socialist thought, the need for anarchist groups to work within popular 
organisations and in the mass of the population in general. These groups 
would play an important role in helping to clarify the ideas of those in 
struggle and undermining the internal and external barriers against these 
ideas.
</p><p>
The first of these are what Emma Goldman termed the <i>"internal tyrants,"</i> 
the <i>"ethical and social conventions"</i> of existing, hierarchical society 
which accustom people to authoritarian social relationships, injustice, lack of 
freedom and so on. [<B>Red Emma Speaks</b>, pp. 164-5] External barriers are 
what Chomsky terms <i>"the Manufacture of Consent,"</i> the process by which the 
population at large are influenced to accept the status quo and the dominant 
elites viewpoint via the education system and media. It is this "manufacture 
of consent" which helps explain why, relatively speaking, there are so few 
anarchists even though we argue that anarchism is the natural product of 
working class life. While, objectively, the experiences of life drives 
working class people to resist domination and oppression, they enter that 
struggle with a history behind them, a history of education in capitalist 
schools, of consuming capitalist media, and so on. 
</p><p>
This means that while social struggle is radicalising, it also has 
to combat years of pro-state and pro-capitalist influences. So even 
if an anarchist consciousness springs from the real conditions of 
working class life, because we live in a class society there are numerous 
counter-tendencies that <b>inhibit</b> the development of that consciousness
(such as religion, current morality, the media, pro-business and pro-state 
propaganda, state and business repression and so on). This explains the 
differences in political opinion within the working class, as people 
develop at different speeds and are subject to different influences and 
experiences. However, the numerous internal and external barriers to 
the development of anarchist opinions created our <i>"internal tyrants"</i> 
and by the process of <i>"manufacturing consent"</i> can be, and are, weaken 
by rational discussion as well as social struggle and self-activity.
Indeed, until such time as we have <i>"learned to defy them all [the internal 
tyrants], to stand firmly on [our] own ground and to insist upon
[our] own unrestricted freedom"</i> we can never be free or successfully
combat the "manufacture of consent."</i> [Goldman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 140] And this is where the anarchist group can play a part, for 
there is an important role to be played by those who have been through 
this process already, namely to aid those going through it.
</p><p>
Of course the activity of an anarchist group does not occur in a vacuum.
In periods of low class struggle, where there is little collective action,
anarchist ideas will seem utopian and so dismissed by most. In
these situations, only a few will become anarchists simply because the
experiences of working people do not bred confidence that an alternative
to the current system is possible. In addition, if anarchist groups are
small, many who are looking for an alternative may join other groups
which are more visible and express a libertarian sounding rhetoric
(such as Leninist groups, who often talk about workers' control, 
workers' councils and so on while meaning something distinctly
different from what anarchists mean by these terms). However, as
the class struggle increases and people become more inclined to
take collective action, they can become empowered and radicalised 
by their own activity and be more open to anarchist ideas and the
possibility of changing society. In these situations, anarchist groups
grow and the influence in anarchist ideas increases. This explains
why anarchist ideas are not as widespread as they could be. It also
indicates another important role for the anarchist group, namely to
provide an environment and space where those drawn to anarchist
ideas can meet and share experiences and ideas during periods of
reaction.
</p><p>
The role of the anarchist group, therefore, is <b>not</b> to import 
a foreign ideology into the working class, but rather to help 
develop and clarify the ideas of those working class people 
who are moving towards anarchism and so aid those 
undergoing that development. They would aid this development by 
providing propaganda which exposes the current social system 
(and the rationales for it) as bankrupt as well as encouraging 
resistance to oppression and exploitation. The former, for 
Bakunin, allowed the <i>"bringing [of] a more just general expression, 
a new and more congenial form to the existent instincts of the 
proletariat . . . [which] can sometimes facilitate and precipitate 
development . . . [and] give them an awareness of what they have, 
of what they feel, of what they already instinctively desire, but 
never can it give to them what they don't have."</i> The latter <i>"is 
the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form 
of propaganda"</i> and <i>"awake[s] in the masses all the social-revolutionary 
instincts which reside deeply in the heart of every worker"</i> so 
allowing instinct to become transformed into <i>"reflected socialist 
thought."</i> [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, <b>The Social and Political 
Thought of Michael Bakunin</b>, p. 107, p. 108 and p. 141]
</p><p>
To quote the UK <b>Anarchist Federation</b>, again <i>"the [libertarian] 
organisation is not just a propaganda group: above all it must actively
work in all the grassroots organisations of the working class such as 
rank and file [trade union] groups, tenants associations, squatters and 
unemployed groups as well as women's, black and gay groups."</i> It 
<i>"respects the independence of working class movements and (unlike]
others) does not try to subordinate them to the revolutionary organisation.
This does not mean that it does not seek to spread its ideas in these 
movements."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 15 and p. 16] Such an organisation 
is not vanguardist in the Leninist sense as it 
recognises that socialist politics derive from working class experience, 
rather than bourgeois intellectuals (as Lenin and Karl Kautsky argued), 
and that it does not aim to dominate popular movements but rather work 
within them as equals.
</p><p>
So while we recognise that "advanced" sections do exist within 
the working class and that anarchists are one such section, we 
also recognise that <b>central</b> characteristic of anarchism is 
that its politics are derived from the concrete experience of 
fighting capitalism and statism directly -- that is, from the 
realities of working class life. This means that anarchists must 
also learn from working class people in struggle. If we recognise 
that anarchist ideas are the product of working class experience 
and self-activity and that these constantly change and develop in 
light of new experiences and struggles then anarchist theory <b>must 
be open to change by learning from non-anarchists.</b> Not to recognise 
this fact is to open the door to vanguardism and dogma. Because 
of this fact, anarchists argue that the relationship between 
anarchists and non-anarchists must be an egalitarian one, based 
on mutual interaction and the recognition that no one is infallible 
or have all the answers -- including anarchists!  With this 
in mind, while we recognise the presence of "advanced" groups 
within the working class (which obviously reflects the uneven 
development within it), anarchists aim to minimise such 
unevenness by the way anarchist organisations intervene 
in social struggle, intervention based on involving <b>all</b>
in the decision making process (as we discuss below).
</p><p>
Thus the general aim of anarchist groups is to spread ideas -- such as 
general anarchist analysis of society and current events, libertarian 
forms of organisation, direct action and solidarity and so forth -- and 
win people over to anarchism (i.e. to "make" anarchists). This involves
both propaganda and participating as equals in social struggle and 
popular organisation. Anarchists do not think that changing leaders 
is a solution to the problem of (bad) leadership. Rather, it is a question
of making leaders redundant by empowering all. As Malatesta argued,
we <i>"do not want to <b>emancipate</b> the people; we want the people to
<b>emancipate themselves.</b>"</i> Thus anarchists <i>"advocate and practise 
direct action, decentralisation, autonomy and individual initiative; they 
should make special efforts to help members [of popular organisations] 
learn to participate directly in the life of the organisation and to 
dispense with leaders and full-time functionaries."</i> [<b>Errico
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 90 and p. 125]
</p><p>
This means that anarchists reject the idea that anarchist groups and 
federations must become the "leaders" of organisations. Rather, we 
desire anarchist ideas to be commonplace in society and in popular
organisations, so that leadership by people from positions of power 
is replaced by the <i>"natural influence"</i> (to use Bakunin's term) of
activists within the rank and file on the decisions made <b>by</b> the 
rank and file. While we will discuss Bakunin's ideas in more detail 
in 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj37">section J.3.7</a>, 
the concept of <i>"natural influence"</i> can be gathered 
from this comment of Francisco Ascaso (friend of Durruti and an
influential anarchist militant in the CNT and FAI in his own right):
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"There is not a single militant who as a 'FAIista' intervenes in 
union meetings. I work, therefore I am an exploited person. I pay
my dues to the workers' union and when I intervene at union meetings
I do it as someone who is exploited, and with the right which is
granted me by the card in my possession, as do the other militants,
whether they belong to the FAI or not."</i> [quoted by Abel Paz, 
<b>Durruti: The People Armed</b>, p. 137]
</blockquote></p><p>
This shows the nature of the "leadership of ideas." Rather than be elected
to a position of power or responsibility, the anarchist presents their ideas
at mass meetings and argues his or her case. This means obviously implies
a two-way learning process, as the anarchist learns from the experiences
of others and the others come in contact with anarchist ideas. Moreover,
it is an egalitarian relationship, based upon discussion between equals
rather than urging people to place someone into power above them. It 
ensures that everyone in the organisation participants in making, 
understands and agrees with the decisions reached. This obviously
helps the political development of all involved (including, we must
stress, the anarchists). As Durruti argued: <i>"the man [or woman] who 
alienates his will, can never be free to express himself and follow his 
own ideas at a union meeting if he feel dominated by the feeblest 
orator . . . As long as a man doesn't think for himself and doesn't 
assume his own responsibilities, there will be no complete liberation 
of human beings."</i> [quoted by Paz, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 184]
</p><p>
Because of our support for the "leadership of ideas", anarchists think
that all popular organisations must be open, fully self-managed and 
free from authoritarianism. Only in this way can ideas and discussion 
play an important role in the life of the organisation. Since anarchists
<i>"do not believe in the good that comes from above and imposed by
force"</i> and <i>"want the new way of life to emerge from the body of
the people and advance as they advance. It matters to us therefore
that all interests and opinions find their expression in a conscious
organisation and should influence communal life in proportion
to their importance."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 90] Bakunin's 
words with regards the first International Workers Association 
indicate this clearly:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"It must be a people's movement, organised from the bottom up by 
the free, spontaneous action of the masses. There must be no secret
governmentalism, the masses must be informed of everything . . .  
All the affairs of the International must be thoroughly and openly 
discussed without evasions and circumlocutions."</i> [<b>Bakunin on
Anarchism</b>, p. 408]
</blockquote></p><p>
Given this, anarchists reject the idea of turning the organs
created in the class struggle and revolutionary process into
hierarchical structures. By turning them from organs of
self-management into organs for nominating "leaders," the
constructive tasks and political development of the revolution 
will be aborted before they really begin. The active participation 
of all will become reduced to the picking of new masters and the 
revolution will falter. For this reason, anarchists <i>"differ 
from the Bolshevik type of party in their belief that genuine 
revolutionaries must function <b>within the framework of the 
forms created by the revolution,</b> not within forms created 
by the party."</i> This means that <i>"an 
organisation is needed to propagate ideas systematically -- and 
not ideas alone, but <b>ideas which promote the concept of 
self-management.</b>"</i> In other words, there <i>"is a need 
for a revolutionary organisation -- but its function must always 
be kept clearly in mind. Its first task is propaganda . . . In a 
revolutionary situation, the revolutionary organisation presents 
the most advanced demands: it is prepared at every turn of events 
to formulate -- in the most concrete fashion -- the immediate task 
that should be performed to advance the revolutionary process. It 
provides the boldest elements in action and in the decision-making 
organs of the revolution."</i> [Murray Bookchin, <b>Post-Scarcity 
Anarchism</b>, p. 140] What it does <b>not</b> do is to supplant 
those organs or decision-making process by creating institutionalised,
hierarchical leadership structures. 
</p><p>
Equally as important as <b>how</b> anarchists intervene in social struggles
and popular organisations and the organisation of those struggles and
organisations, there is the question of the nature of that intervention. 
We would like to quote the following by the British libertarian 
socialist group <b>Solidarity</b> as it sums up the underlying nature 
of anarchist action and the importance of a libertarian perspective 
on social struggle and change and how politically aware minorities 
work within them:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"<b>Meaningful action,</b> for revolutionaries, is whatever increases 
the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the
solidarity, the egalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the
masses and whatever assists in their demystification. <b>Sterile and
harmful action</b> is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses,
their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy,
their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and
the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others -- 
even by those allegedly acting on their behalf."</i> [Maurice Brinton, 
<b>For Workers' Power</b>, p. 154] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Part of this "meaningful action" involves encouraging people to
<b><i>"act for yourselves"</i></b> (to use Kropotkin's words). As we noted
in <a href="secA2.html#seca27">section A.2.7</a>, 
anarchism is based on <b>self</b>-liberation and 
self-activity is key aspect of this. Hence Malatesta's argument:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Our task is that of 'pushing' the people to demand and to seize all
the freedom they can and to make themselves responsible for providing
their own needs without waiting for orders from any kind of authority.
Our task is that of demonstrating the uselessness and harmfulness of
government, provoking and encouraging by propaganda and action, all
kinds of individual and collective activities.</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"It is in fact a question of education for freedom, of making people 
who are accustomed to obedience and passivity consciously aware of 
their real power and capabilities. One must encourage people to do 
things for themselves."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 178-9]
</blockquote></p><p>
This "pushing" people to "do it themselves" is another key role for 
any anarchist organisation. The encouragement of direct action is just
as important as anarchist propaganda and popular participation within
social struggle and popular organisations. 
</p><p>
As such social struggle developments, the possibility of revolution
becomes closer and closer. While we discuss anarchists ideas on social 
revolution in <a href="secJ7.html">section J.7</a>, 
we must note here that the role of the 
anarchist organisation does not change. As Bookchin argued, 
anarchists <i>"seek to persuade the factory committees, assemblies"</i>
and other organisations created by people in struggle <i>"to make 
themselves into <b>genuine organs of popular self-management</b>, 
not to dominate them, manipulate them, or hitch them to an all-knowing 
political party."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 140] In this way, by encouraging 
self-management in struggle, anarchist lay the foundations of a self-managed 
society.
</p>

<a name="secj37"><h2>J.3.7 Doesn't Bakunin's <i>"Invisible Dictatorship"</i> prove that anarchists are secret authoritarians?</h2></a>

<p>
No. While Bakunin did use the term <i>"invisible dictatorship"</i>, it
does not prove that Bakunin or anarchists are secret authoritarians. The
claim otherwise, often made by Leninists and other Marxists, expresses a 
distinct, even wilful, misunderstanding of Bakunin's ideas on the role 
revolutionaries should play in popular movements. 
</p><p>
Marxists quote Bakunin's terms <i>"invisible dictatorship"</i> and <i>"collective 
dictatorship"</i> out of context, using it to "prove" that anarchists are secret 
authoritarians, seeking dictatorship over the masses. More widely, the 
question of Bakunin and his "invisible dictatorship" finds its way into 
sympathetic accounts of anarchist ideas. For example, Peter 
Marshall writes that it is <i>"not difficult to conclude that Bakunin's 
invisible dictatorship would be even more tyrannical than a . . . Marxist 
one"</i> and that it expressed a <i>"profound authoritarian and dissimulating 
streak in his life and work."</i> [<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 287] So, 
the question of setting the record straight about this aspect of Bakunin's 
theory is of more importance than just correcting a few Leninists. In 
addition, to do so will help clarify the concept of <i>"leadership of ideas"</i> 
we discussed in the <a href="secJ3.html#secj36">last section</a>. 
For both these reasons, this section, 
while initially appearing somewhat redundant and of interest only to 
academics, is of a far wider interest.
</p><p>
Anarchists have two responses to claims that Bakunin (and, 
by implication, all anarchists) seek an <i>"invisible"</i> 
dictatorship and so are not true libertarians. Firstly, and 
this is the point we will concentrate upon in this section, 
Bakunin's expression is taken out of context and when placed 
within context it takes on a radically different meaning than 
that implied by critics of anarchism. Secondly, even <b>if</b> 
the expression means what the critics claim it does, it does 
not refute anarchism as a political theory. This is because 
anarchists are <b>not</b> Bakuninists (or Proudhonists or 
Kropotkinites or any other person-ist). We recognise other 
anarchists for what they are, human beings who said lots of 
important and useful things but, like any other human being, 
made mistakes and often do not live up to all of their ideas. 
For anarchists, it is a question of 
extracting the useful parts from their works and rejecting 
the useless (as well as the downright nonsense!). Just because 
Bakunin said something, it does not make it right! This 
common-sense approach to politics seems to be lost on Marxists. 
Indeed, if we take the logic of these Marxists to its conclusion, 
we must reject everything Rousseau wrote (he was sexist), Marx 
and Engels (their comments against Slavs spring to mind, along 
with numerous other racist comments) and so on. But, of course, 
this never happens to non-anarchist thinkers when Marxists 
write their articles and books.
</p><p>
However, to return to our main argument, that of the importance 
of context. Significantly, whenever Bakunin uses the term "invisible" 
or "collective" dictatorship he also explicitly states his opposition 
to government power and <b>in particular</b> the idea that anarchists 
should seize it. For example, a Leninist quotes the following passage 
from <i>"a Bakuninist document"</i> to show <i>"the dictatorial ambitions
of Bakunin"</i> and that the <i>"principle of anti-democracy was to leave 
Bakunin unchallenged at the apex of power"</i>: <i>"It is necessary that 
in the midst of popular anarchy, which will constitute the very life and 
energy of the revolution, unity of thought and revolutionary action should 
find an organ. This organ must be the secret and world-wide association of 
the international brethren."</i> [Derek Howl, <i>"The legacy of Hal Draper"</i>, 
pp. 137-49, <b>International Socialist</b>, no. 52, p. 147] 
</p><p>
However, in the sentence <b>immediately before</b> those quoted, Bakunin 
stated that <i>"[t]his organisation rules out any idea of dictatorship and 
custodial control."</i> Strange that this part of the document was not 
quoted! Nor is Bakunin quoted when he wrote, in the same document, 
that <i>"[w]e are the natural enemies of those revolutionaries -- future 
dictators, regimentors and custodians of revolution -- who . . . [want] 
to create new revolutionary States just as centralist and despotic as 
those we already know."</i> Not mentioned either is Bakunin's opinion that
the <i>"revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme 
control must always belong to the people organised into a free federation 
of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom 
upwards by means of revolutionary delegations . . . [who] will set out to 
administer public services, not to rule over peoples."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: 
Selected Writings</b>, p. 172, p. 169 and p. 172] Selective quoting is only 
convincing to those ignorant of the subject.
</p><p>
Similarly, when we look at the situations where Bakunin uses the terms 
<i>"invisible"</i> or <i>"collective"</i> dictatorship (usually in letters 
to comrades) we find the same thing -- the explicit denial <b>in these
same letters</b> that Bakunin thought the revolutionary association 
should take governmental power. For example, in a letter to 
Albert Richard (a fellow member of the <i>"Alliance of 
Social Democracy"</i>) Bakunin stated that <i>"[t]here is only one 
power and one dictatorship whose organisation is salutary and 
feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those 
who are allied in the name of our principle."</i> He then immediately 
adds that <i>"this dictatorship will be all the more salutary and 
effective for not being dressed up in any official power or 
extrinsic character."</i> Earlier in the letter he argued that 
anarchists must be <i>"like invisible pilots in the thick of the 
popular tempest. . . steer[ing] it [the revolution] not by any 
open power but by the collective dictatorship of all the allies 
-- a dictatorship without insignia, titles or official rights, 
and all the stronger for having none of the paraphernalia 
of power."</i> Explicitly opposing <i>"Committees of Public Safety 
and official, overt dictatorship"</i> he explains his idea of a 
revolution based on <i>"workers hav[ing] joined into associations . . .
armed and organised by streets and <b>quartiers</b>, the federative 
commune."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 181, p. 180 and p. 179] Hardly 
what would be expected from a would-be dictator. As Sam Dolgoff 
suggested:
</p><p><blockquote>
 <i>"an organisation exercising no overt authority, without a 
state, without official status, without the machinery of 
institutionalised power to enforce its policies, cannot be defined as 
a dictatorship . . . Moreover, if it is borne in mind that this passage 
is part of a letter repudiating in the strongest terms the State and 
the authoritarian statism of the 'Robespierres, the Dantons, and the 
Saint-Justs of the revolution,' it is reasonable to conclude that 
Bakunin used the word 'dictatorship' to denote preponderant 
influence or guidance exercised largely by example . . .  In line 
with this conclusion, Bakunin used the words 'invisible' and 
'collective' to denote the underground movement exerting this 
influence in an organised manner."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, 
p. 182]</blockquote>
</p><p>
This analysis is confirmed by other passages from Bakunin's letters.
In a letter to the Nihilist Sergi Nechaev (within which Bakunin 
indicates exactly how far apart politically they were -- which is 
important as, from Marx onwards, many of Bakunin's opponents 
quote Nechaev's pamphlets as if they were "Bakuninist," when 
in fact they were not) we find him arguing that:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"These [revolutionary] groups would not seek anything for 
themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power . . . [but] 
would be in a position to direct popular movements . . . and lead
the people towards the most complete realisation of the 
social-economic ideal and the organisation of the fullest popular
freedom. This is what I call <b>the collective dictatorship</b> of 
a secret organisation.</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<Blockquote>
<i>"The dictatorship . . . does not reward any of the members that
comprise the groups, or the groups themselves, with any profit or 
honour or official power. It does not threaten the freedom of the 
people, because, lacking any official character, it does not take 
the place of State control over the people, and because its whole 
aim . . . consists of the fullest realisation of the liberty of the 
people.</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"This sort of dictatorship is not in the least contrary to the 
free development and the self-development of the people, nor its 
organisation from the bottom upward . . . for it influences the 
people exclusively through the natural, personal influence of its 
members, who have not the slightest power, . . . and . . . try . . . 
to direct the spontaneous revolutionary movement of the people towards 
. . . the organisation of popular liberty . . . This secret dictatorship 
would in the first place, and at the present time, carry out a 
broadly based popular propaganda . . . and by the power of this 
propaganda and also by <b>organisation among the people themselves</b> 
join together separate popular forces into a mighty strength capable 
of demolishing the State."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, 
pp. 193-4]
</blockquote></p><p>
The key aspect of this is the notion of <i>"natural"</i> influence. 
In a letter to a Spanish member of the Alliance we find Bakunin 
arguing that it <i>"will promote the Revolution only through the 
<b>natural but never official influence</b> of all members of the 
Alliance."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 387] This term was 
also used in his public writings, with Bakunin arguing that the 
<i>"very freedom of every individual results from th[e] great number 
of material, intellectual, and moral influences which every 
individual around him and which society . . . continually exercise 
on him"</i> and that <i>"everything alive . . . intervene[s] . . . 
in the life of others . . . [so] we hardly wish to abolish the 
effect of any individual's or any group of individuals' natural 
influence upon the masses."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 140 
and p. 141] 
</p><p>
Thus <i>"natural influence"</i> simply means the effect of communicating
which others, discussing your ideas with them and winning them over
to your position, nothing more. This is hardly authoritarian, and so
Bakunin contrasts this <i>"natural"</i> influence with <i>"official"</i> 
influence, which replaced the process of mutual interaction between 
equals with a fixed hierarchy of command and thereby induced the 
<i>"transformation of natural influence, and, as such, the perfectly 
legitimate influence over man, into a right."</i> [quoted by Richard B. 
Saltman, <b>The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin</b>,
p. 46] 
</p><p>
As an example of this difference, consider the case of a union
militant (as will become clear, this is the sort of example Bakunin
had in mind). As long as they are part of the rank-and-file, arguing
their case at union meetings or being delegated to carry out the 
decisions of these assemblies then their influence is <i>"natural."</i> 
However, if this militant is elected into a position with executive
power in the union (i.e. becomes a full-time union official, for
example, rather than a shop-steward) then their influence becomes
<i>"official"</i> and so, potentially, corrupting for both the militant 
and the rank-and-file who are subject to the rule of the official.
</p><p>
Indeed, this notion of <i>"natural"</i> influence was 
also termed <i>"invisible"</i> by Bakunin: <i>"It is only necessary 
that one worker in ten join the [International Working-Men's] Association 
<b>earnestly</b> and <b>with full understanding of the cause</b> for the 
nine-tenths remaining outside its organisation nevertheless to be 
influenced invisibly by it."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 139] 
So, as can be seen, the terms <i>"invisible"</i> and <i>"collective"</i> 
dictatorship used by Bakunin in his letters is strongly related to the 
term <i>"natural influence"</i> used in his public works and seems to 
be used simply to indicate the effects of an organised political group 
on the masses. To see this, it is worthwhile to quote Bakunin at length 
about the nature of this <i>"invisible"</i> influence:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"It may be objected that this . . . influence on the popular masses 
suggests the establishment of a system of authority and a new government 
. . . Such a belief would be a serious blunder. The organised effect of 
the International on the masses . . . is nothing but the entirely natural 
organisation -- neither official nor clothed in any authority or political 
force whatsoever -- of the effect of a rather numerous group of individuals 
who are inspired by the same thought and headed toward the same goal, 
first of all on the opinion of the masses and only then, by the 
intermediary of this opinion (restated by the International's propaganda), 
on their will and their deeds. But the governments . . . impose themselves 
violently on the masses, who are forced to obey them and to execute their 
decrees . . . The International's influence will never be anything but one 
of opinion and the International will never be anything but the organisation 
of the natural effect of individuals on the masses."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
pp. 139-40]
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore, from both the fuller context provided by the works and 
letters selectively quoted by Marxists <b>and</b> his other writings, 
we find that rather than being a secret authoritarian, Bakunin was, 
in fact, trying to express how anarchists could <i>"naturally influence"</i> 
the masses and their revolution:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of <b>official
power</b> . . . We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared
dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists . . . if we are
anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and
what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort
of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people's
revolution? <b>By a force that is invisible . . . that is not imposed
on anyone . . . [and] deprived of all official rights and significance.</b>"</i>
[<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, pp. 191-2]
</blockquote></p><p>
Continually opposing <i>"official"</i> power, authority and influence, 
Bakunin used the term <i>"invisible, collective dictatorship"</i> to 
describe the <i>"natural influence"</i> of organised anarchists on mass 
movements. Rather than express a desire to become a dictator, it in
fact expresses the awareness that there is an "uneven" political 
development within the working class, an unevenness that can only
be undermined by discussion within the mass assemblies of popular
organisations. Any attempt to by-pass this "unevenness" by seizing or
being elected to positions of power (i.e. by <i>"official influence"</i>) 
would be doomed to failure and result in dictatorship by a party -- 
<i>"triumph of the Jacobins or the Blanquists [or the Bolsheviks, we must 
add] would be the death of the Revolution."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 169]
</p><p>
So rather than seek power, the anarchists would seek <b>influence</b> based 
on the soundness of their ideas, what anarchists today term the <i>"leadership 
of ideas"</i> in other words. Thus the anarchist federation <i>"unleashes their 
[the peoples] will and gives wider opportunity for their self-determination 
and their social-economic organisation, which should be created by them alone 
from the bottom upwards . . . The [revolutionary] organisation . . . [must] 
not in any circumstances . . . ever be their master . . . What is to be 
the chief aim and pursue of this organisation? <b>To help the people 
towards self-determination on the lines of the most complete equality and 
fullest human freedom in every direction, without the least interference from 
any sort of domination . . . that is without any sort of government control.</b>"</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 191]
</p><p>
This analysis can be seen from Bakunin's discussion on union 
bureaucracy and how anarchists should combat it. Taking the Geneva
section of the IWMA, Bakunin notes that the construction workers' 
section <i>"simply left all decision-making to their committees . . . 
In this manner power gravitated to the committees, and by a species 
of fiction characteristic of all governments the committees substituted 
their own will and their own ideas for that of the membership."</i> 
To combat this bureaucracy, the union <i>"sections could only defend 
their rights and their autonomy in only one way: the workers called general
membership meetings. Nothing arouses the antipathy of the committees
more than these popular assemblies . . . In these great meetings of the
sections, the items on the agenda was amply discussed and the most
progressive opinion prevailed."</i> Given that Bakunin considered 
<i>"the federative Alliance of all the workers' associations"</i> 
would <i>"constitute the Commune"</i> by means of delegates with 
<i>"always responsible, and revocable mandates"</i>, we can easily see 
that the role of the anarchist federation would be to intervene in 
general assemblies of these associations and ensure, through debate,
that the most progressive opinion prevailed. [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, 
p. 246, p. 247 and p. 153] 
</p><p>
Having shown that the role of Bakunin's revolutionary organisations
is drastically different than that suggested by the selective quotations
of Marxists, we need to address two more issues. One, the so-called
hierarchical nature of Bakunin's organisations and, two, their secret
nature. Taking the issue of hierarchy first, we can do no better than
quote Richard B. Saltman's summary of the internal organisation of
these groups:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The association's 'single will,' Bakunin wrote, would be determined
by 'laws' that every member 'helped to create,' or at a minimum 'equally
approved' by 'mutual agreement.' This 'definite set of rules' was to be
'frequently renewed' in plenary sessions wherein each member had the
'duty to try and make his view prevail,' but then he must accept fully
the decision of the majority. Thus the revolutionary association's 
'rigorously conceived and prescribed plan,' implemented under the
'strictest discipline,' was in reality to be 'nothing more or less 
than the expression and direct outcome of the reciprocal commitment
contracted by each of the members towards the others.'"</i> [<b>Op. 
Cit.</b>, p. 115]
</blockquote></p><p>
While many anarchists would not totally agree with this set-up
(although we think that most supporters of the "Platform" would) all
would agree that it is <b>not</b> hierarchical. If anything, it appears 
quite democratic in nature. Moreover, comments in Bakunin's letters 
to other Alliance members support the argument that his revolutionary
associations were more democratic in nature than Marxists suggest. 
In a letter to a Spanish comrade we find him suggesting that <i>"all 
[Alliance] groups. . . should. . . from now on accept new members 
not by majority vote, but unanimously."</i> [<p>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 386] 
In a letter to Italian members of the IWMA he argued that in 
Geneva the Alliance did not resort to <i>"secret plots and intrigues."</i> 
Rather:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Everything was done in broad daylight, openly, for everyone to 
see . . . The Alliance had regular weekly open meetings and everyone 
was urged to participate in the discussions . . . The old procedure 
where members sat and passively listened to speakers talking down 
to them from their pedestal was discarded.</i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"It was established that all meetings be conducted by informal 
round-table conversational discussions in which everybody felt 
free to participate: not to be talked <b>at</b>, but to exchange 
views."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 405-6]
</blockquote></p><p>
Moreover, we find Bakunin being out-voted within the Alliance,
hardly what we would expect if they <b>were</b> top-down dictatorships
run by him as Marxists claim. The historian T.R. Ravindranathan
indicates that after the Alliance was founded <i>"Bakunin wanted 
the Alliance to become a branch of the International [Worker's
Association] and at the same time preserve it as a secret society. The
Italian and some French members wanted the Alliance to be totally
independent of the IWA and objected to Bakunin's secrecy. Bakunin's
view prevailed on the first question as he succeeded in convincing
the majority of the harmful effects of a rivalry between the Alliance
and the International. On the question of secrecy, he gave way to his
opponents."</i> [<b>Bakunin and the Italians</b>, p. 83]
</p><p>
Moreover, if Bakunin <b>did</b> seek to create a centralised, hierarchical 
organisation, as Marxists claim, he did not do a good job. We find him complaining 
that the Madrid Alliance was breaking up (<i>"The news of the dissolution 
of the Alliance in Spain saddened Bakunin. he intensified his letter-writing
to Alliance members whom he trusted . . . He tried to get the Spaniards
to reverse their decision"</i> [Juan Gomez Casa, <b>Anarchist Organisation</b>, 
pp. 37-8]). While the "Bakuninist" Spanish and Swiss sections of 
the IWMA sent delegates to its infamous Hague congress, the "Bakuninist" 
Italian section did not. Of course, Marxists could argue that these facts 
show Bakunin's cunning nature, but the more obvious explanation is that 
Bakunin did not create a hierarchical organisation with himself at the top. 
</p><p>
The evidence suggests that the Alliance <i>"was not a compulsory or 
authoritarian body."</i> In Spain, it <I>"acted independently and was 
prompted by purely local situations. The copious correspondence 
between Bakunin and his friends . . . was at all times motivated by 
the idea of offering advice, persuading, and clarifying. It was never 
written in a spirit of command, because that was not his style, nor 
would it have been accepted as such by his associates."</i> Moreover, 
there <i>"is no trace or shadow or hierarchical organisation in a letter 
from Bakunin to Mora . . . On the contrary, Bakunin advises 'direct' 
relations between Spanish and Italian Comrades."</i> The Spanish 
comrades also wrote a pamphlet which <i>"ridiculed the fable of orders 
from abroad."</i> [Casa, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 25 and p. 40] This is 
confirmed by George R. Esenwein who argues that <i>"[w]hile it is true 
that Bakunin's direct intervention during the early days of the
International's development in Spain had assured the pre-dominance
of his influence in the various federations and sections"</i> of the
organisation, <i>"it cannot be said that he manipulated it or otherwise 
used the Spanish Alliance as a tool for his own subversive designs."</i> 
Thus, <i>"though the Alliance did exist in Spain, the society did not 
bear any resemblance to the nefarious organisation that the Marxists 
depicted."</i> [<b>Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement 
in Spain</b>, p. 42] Indeed, as Max Nettlau points out, those Spaniards 
who did break with the Alliance were persuaded of its <i>"hierarchical 
organisation . . . not by their own direct observation, but by what 
they had been told about the conduct of the organisation"</i> in other
countries. [quoted by Casa, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 39-40]. In addition, 
if Bakunin <b>did</b> run the Alliance under his own personal 
dictatorship we would expect it to change or dissolve upon his death. 
However, <i>"the Spanish Alliance survived Bakunin, who died in 1876, 
yet with few exceptions it continued to function in much the same way 
it had during Bakunin's lifetime."</i> [Esenwein, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 43]
</p><p>
Moving on to the second issue, the question of why Bakunin favoured 
secret organisation. At the time many states where despotic monarchies,
with little or no civil rights. As he argued, <i>"nothing but a secret
society would want to take this [arousing a revolution] on, for
the interests of the government and of the government classes
would be bitterly opposed to it."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings</b>, p. 188] For survival, Bakunin considered secrecy an
essential. As Juan Gomez Casas noted: <i>"In view of the difficulties
of that period, Bakunin believed that secret groups of convinced
and absolutely trustworthy men were safer and more effective.
They would be able to place themselves at the head of developments
at critical moments, but only to inspire and to clarify the issues."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 22] Even Marxists, faced with dictatorial states, 
have organised in secret and as George R. Esenwein points out, the
<i>"claim that Bakunin's organisation scheme was not the product
of a 'hard-headed realism' cannot be supported in the light of
the experiences of the Spanish Alliancists. It is beyond doubt 
that their adherence to Bakunin's program greatly contributed
to the FRE's [Spanish section of the First International] ability 
to flourish during the early part of the 1870s and to survive the 
harsh circumstances of repression in the period 1874-1881."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 224f] So Bakunin's personal experiences in Tsarist 
Russia and other illiberal states shaped his ideas on how revolutionaries
should organise (and let us not forget that he had been imprisoned 
in the Peter and Paul prison for his activities).
</p><p>
This is not to suggest that all of Bakunin's ideas on the role and
nature of anarchist groups are accepted by anarchists today. Most
anarchists would reject Bakunin's arguments for secrecy, for example 
(particularly as secrecy cannot help but generate an atmosphere of 
deceit and, potentially, manipulation). Anarchists remember that 
anarchism did not spring fully formed and complete from Bakunin's 
(or any other individual's) head. Rather it was developed over time 
and by many individuals, inspired by many different experiences and 
movements. As such, anarchists recognise that Bakunin was 
inconsistent in some ways, as would be expected from a theorist 
breaking new ground, and this applies to his ideas on how anarchist 
groups should work within and the role they should play in popular 
movements. Most of his ideas are valid, once we place them into context, 
some are not. Anarchists embrace the valid ones and voice their 
opposition to the others.
</p><p>
In summary, any apparent contradiction between the "public" and 
"private" Bakunin disappears once we place his comments into 
context within both the letters he wrote and his overall political
theory. As Brian Morris argues, those who argue that Bakunin was in 
favour of despotism only come to <i>"these conclusions by an incredible 
distortion of the substance of what Bakunin was trying to convey in 
his letters to Richard and Nechaev"</i> and <i>"[o]nly the most 
jaundiced scholar, or one blinded by extreme antipathy towards 
Bakunin or anarchism, could interpret these words as indicating 
that Bakunin conception of a secret society implied a revolutionary 
dictatorship in the Jacobin sense, still less a 'despotism'"</i> 
[<b>Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom</b>, p. 144 and p. 149]
</p>

<a name="secj38"><h2>J.3.8 What is anarcho-syndicalism?</h2></a>

<p>
Anarcho-syndicalism (as mentioned in 
<a href="secA3.html#seca32">section A.3.2</a>) is a form of 
anarchism which applies itself (primarily) to creating industrial 
unions organised in an anarchist manner, using anarchist tactics 
(such as direct action) to create a free society. To quote <i>"The 
Principles of Revolutionary Syndicalism"</i> of the <b>International 
Workers Association</b>:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Revolutionary Syndicalism is that movement of the working classes
founded on the basis of class war, which strives for the union of 
manual and intellectual workers in economic fighting organisations,
in order to prepare for and realise in practice their liberation from
the yoke of wage-slavery and state oppression. Its goal is the 
reorganisation of social life on the basis of free communism through
the collective revolutionary action of the working classes themselves. 
It takes the view that only the economic organisations of the 
proletariat are appropriate for the realisation of this task and
turns therefore to the workers in their capacity as producers and 
generators of social value, in opposition to the modern political 
labour parties, which for constructive economic purpose do not come
into consideration."</i> [quoted by Wayne Thorpe,  <b>"The Workers 
Themselves"</b>, p. 322]
</blockquote></p><p>
The word <i>"syndicalism"</i> is an English rendering of the French 
for <i>"revolutionary trade unionism"</i> (<i>"syndicalisme revolutionarie"</i>). 
In the 1890s many anarchists in France started to work within the trade union
movement, radicalising it from within. As the ideas of autonomy, direct 
action, the general strike and political independence of unions which 
where associated with the French <b>Confederation Generale du Travail</b> 
(CGT, or General Confederation of Labour) spread across the world (partly 
through anarchist contacts, partly through word of mouth by non-anarchists
who were impressed by the militancy of the CGT), the word "syndicalism" 
was used to describe movements inspired by the example of the CGT. 
Thus "syndicalism," "revolutionary syndicalism" and "anarcho-syndicalism" 
all basically mean "revolutionary unionism" (the term "industrial unionism"
used by the IWW essentially means the same thing). 
</p><p>
The main difference is between revolutionary syndicalism and 
anarcho-syndicalism, with anarcho-syndicalism arguing that 
revolutionary syndicalism concentrates too much on the workplace 
and, obviously, stressing the anarchist roots and nature of 
syndicalism more than the former. In addition, anarcho-syndicalism 
is often considered compatible with supporting a specific anarchist 
organisation to complement the work of the revolutionary unions. 
Revolutionary syndicalism, in contrast, argues that the syndicalist 
unions are sufficient in themselves to create libertarian socialism 
and rejects anarchist groups along with political parties. However, 
the dividing line can be unclear and, just to complicate things even 
more, <b>some</b> syndicalists support political parties and are not 
anarchists (there have been a few Marxist syndicalists, for example)
but we will ignore these in our discussion. We will use the term 
syndicalism to describe what each branch has in common.
</p><p>
The syndicalist union is a self-managed industrial union (see 
<a href="secJ5.html#secj52">section J.5.2</a>) 
which is committed to <b>direct action</b> and refuses 
links with political parties, even labour or "socialist" ones. A key 
idea of syndicalism is that of union autonomy -- the idea that the 
workers' organisation is capable of changing society by its own efforts, 
that it must control its own fate and not be controlled by any party
or other outside group (including anarchist federations). This is
sometimes termed <i><b>"workerism"</i></b> (from the French 
<i><b>"ouverierisme"</i></b>), i.e.
workers' control of the class struggle and their own organisations. 
Rather than being a cross-class organisation like the political party, 
the union is a <b>class</b> organisation and is so uniquely capable of 
representing working class aspirations, interests and hopes. <i>"The 
<b>syndicat</b>,"</i> Emile Pouget wrote, <i>"groups together those who 
work against those who live by human exploitation: it brings together 
interests and not opinions."</i> [quoted by Jeremy Jennings, 
<b>Syndicalism in France</b>, pp. 30-1] There is, then, <i>"no place 
in it for anybody who was not a worker. Professional middle class 
intellectuals who provided both the leadership and the ideas of the 
socialist political movement, were therefore at a discount. As a 
consequence the syndicalist movement was, and saw itself as, a 
purely working class form of socialism."</i> Syndicalism <i>"appears 
as the great heroic movement of the proletariat, the first movement 
which took seriously"</i> the argument <i>"that the emancipation of 
the working class must be the task of labour unaided by middle class 
intellectuals or by politicians and aimed to establish a genuinely 
working class socialism and culture, free of all bourgeois taints. 
For the syndicalists, the workers were to be everything, the rest, 
nothing."</i> [Geoffrey Ostergaard, <b>The Tradition of Workers'
Control</b>, p. 38] 
</p><p>
Therefore syndicalism is <i>"consciously anti-parliamentary and 
anti-political. It focuses not only on the realities of power 
but also on the key problem of achieving its disintegration. 
Real power in syndicalist doctrine is economic power. The way 
to dissolve economic power is to make every worker powerful, 
thereby eliminating power as a social privilege. Syndicalism 
thus ruptures all the ties between the workers and the state. 
It opposes political action, political parties, and any
participant in political elections. Indeed it refuses to 
operate in the framework of the established order and the 
state.</i> It <i>"turns to direct action -- strikes, 
sabotage, obstruction, and above all, the revolutionary general 
strike. Direct action not only perpetuates the militancy of the 
workers and keeps alive the spirit of revolt, but awakens in 
them a greater sense of individual initiative. By continual
pressure, direct action tests the strength of the capitalist 
system at all times and presumably in its most important arena -- 
the factory, where ruled and ruler seem to confront each other 
most directly."</i> [Murray Bookchin, <b>The Spanish Anarchists</b>, 
p. 121]
</p><p>
This does not mean that syndicalism is "apolitical" in the sense 
of ignoring totally all political issues. This is a Marxist myth.
Syndicalists follow other anarchists by being opposed to all forms 
of authoritarian/capitalist politics but do take a keen interest
in "political" questions as they relate to the interests of working 
people. Thus they do not "ignore" the state, or the role of the state.
Indeed, syndicalists (like all libertarians) are well aware that the 
state exists to protect capitalist property and power and that we 
need to combat it as well as fight for economic improvements. In short, 
syndicalism is deeply political in the widest sense of the word, 
aiming for a radical change in political, economic and social 
conditions and institutions. Moreover, it is political in the 
narrower sense of being aware of political issues and aiming for 
political reforms along with economic ones. It is only "apolitical" 
when it comes to supporting political parties and using bourgeois 
political institutions, a position which is "political" in the wider 
sense of course! This is obviously identical to the usual anarchist 
position (see <a href="secJ2.html#secj210">section J.2.10</a>).
</p><p>
Which indicates an importance difference between syndicalism
and trade unionism. Syndicalism aims at changing society rather than
just working within it. Thus syndicalism is revolutionary while trade
unionism is reformist. For syndicalists the union <i>"has a double aim:
with tireless persistence, it must pursue betterment of the working
class's current conditions. But, without letting themselves become
obsessed with this passing concern, the workers should take care to
make possible and imminent the essential act of comprehensive
emancipation: the expropriation of capital."</i> Thus syndicalism 
aims to win reforms by direct action and by this struggle bring the 
possibilities of a revolution, via the general strike, closer. Indeed 
any <i>"desired improvement is to be wrested directly from the capitalist"</i> 
and <i>"must always represent a reduction in capitalist privileges and be 
a partial expropriation."</i> [Emile Pouget, <b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, 
vol. 2, p. 71 and p. 73] Thus Emma Goldman:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Of course Syndicalism, like the old trade unions, fights for 
immediate gains, but it is not stupid enough to pretend that 
labour can expect humane conditions from inhumane economic 
arrangements in society. Thus it merely wrests from the enemy 
what it can force him to yield; on the whole, however, Syndicalism 
aims at, and concentrates its energies upon, the complete overthrow 
of the wage system.</i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Syndicalism goes further: it aims to liberate labour from every
institution that has not for its object the free development of 
production for the benefit of all humanity. In short, the ultimate 
purpose of Syndicalism is to reconstruct society from its present 
centralised, authoritative and brutal state to one based upon the 
free, federated grouping of the workers along lines of economic 
and social liberty.</i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"With this object in view, Syndicalism works in two directions: first, 
by undermining the existing institutions; secondly, by developing 
and educating the workers and cultivating their spirit of solidarity, 
to prepare them for a full, free life, when capitalism shall have been 
abolished.</i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Syndicalism is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism."</i>
[<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 91]
</blockquote></p><p>
Which, in turn, explains why syndicalist unions are structured in 
such an obviously libertarian way. It reflects the 
importance of empowering every worker by creating a union which is 
decentralised and self-managed, a union which every member plays a 
key role in determining its policy and activities. Participation 
ensures that the union becomes a <i>"school for the will"</i> (to use 
Pouget's expression) and allows working people to learn how to govern 
themselves and so do without the state. After the revolution, the 
union can easily be transformed into the body by which production is 
organised. The aim of the union is workers' self-management of 
production and distribution after the revolution, a self-management 
which the union is based upon in the here and now. The syndicalist 
union is seen as <i>"the germ of the Socialist economy of the future, 
the elementary school of Socialism in general"</i> and we need to 
<i>"plant these germs while there is yet time and bring them to the 
strongest possible development, so as to make the task of the coming 
social revolution easier and to insure its permanence."</i> [Rocker, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 59] 
</p><p>
Thus, as can be seen, syndicalism differs from trade unionism in
its structure, its methods and its aims. Its structure, method and
aims are distinctly anarchist. Little wonder leading syndicalist
theorist Fernand Pelloutier argued that the trade union, <i>"governing
itself along anarchic lines,"</i> must become <i>"a practical schooling 
in anarchism."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 2, p. 55 and p. 57] 
In addition, most anarcho-syndicalists support community organisations 
and struggle alongside the more traditional industry based approach 
usually associated within syndicalism. While we have concentrated on 
the industrial side here (simply because this is a key aspect of 
syndicalism) we must stress that syndicalism can and does lend 
itself to community struggles. It is a myth that anarcho-syndicalism 
ignores community struggles and organisation, as can be seen from the 
history of the Spanish CNT for example (see 
<a href="secJ5.html#secj51">section J.5.1</a>).
</p><p>
It must be stressed that a syndicalist union is open to all 
workers regardless of their political opinions (or lack of them). 
The union exists to defend workers' interests as workers and 
is organised in an anarchist manner to ensure that their 
interests are fully expressed. This means that an syndicalist 
organisation is different from an organisation of syndicalists. 
What makes the union syndicalist is its structure, aims and 
methods. Obviously things can change (that is true of any 
organisation which has a democratic structure) but that is
a test revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalists welcome and 
do not shirk from. As the union is self-managed from below 
up, its militancy and political content is determined by 
its membership. As Pouget put it, the union <i>"offers employers a 
degree of resistance in geometric proportion with the resistance 
put up by its members."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,  p. 71] That is why 
syndicalists ensure that power rests in the members of the union.
</p><p>
Syndicalists have two main approaches to building revolutionary
unions -- <i><b>"dual unionism"</i></b> and <i><b>"boring from 
within."</i></b> The former 
approach involves creating new, syndicalist, unions, in opposition 
to the existing trade unions. This approach was historically
and is currently the favoured way of building syndicalist unions 
(American, Italian, Spanish, Swedish and numerous other syndicalists 
built their own union federations in the heyday of syndicalism between 
1900 and 1920). "Boring from within" simply means working within the 
existing trade unions in order to reform them and make them syndicalist. 
This approach was favoured by French and British syndicalists, plus a few 
American ones. However, these two approaches are not totally in opposition. 
Many of the dual unions were created by syndicalists who had first worked 
within the existing trade unions. Once they got sick of the bureaucratic 
union machinery and of trying to reform it, they split from the reformist 
unions and formed new, revolutionary, ones. Similarly, dual unionists 
will happily support trade unionists in struggle and often be "two 
carders" (i.e. members of both the trade union and the syndicalist one). 
See <a href="secJ5.html#secj53">section J.5.3</a> for more on anarchist 
perspectives on existing trades unions.
</p><p>
Syndicalists no matter what tactics they prefer, favour 
autonomous workplace organisations, controlled from below. Both
tend to favour syndicalists forming networks of militants to spread
anarchist/syndicalist ideas within the workplace. Indeed, such a
network (usually called <i>"Industrial Networks"</i> -- see 
<a href="secJ5.html#secj54">section J.5.4</a>
for more details) would be an initial stage and essential means 
for creating syndicalist unions. These groups would encourage 
syndicalist tactics and rank and file organisation during
struggles and so create the potential for building syndicalist
unions as libertarian ideas spread and are seen to work.
</p><p>
Syndicalists think that such an organisation is essential
for the successful creation of an anarchist society as it 
builds the new world in the shell of the old, making a sizeable 
majority of the population aware of anarchism and the benefits 
of anarchist forms of organisation and struggle. Moreover, they 
argue that those who reject syndicalism <i>"because it believes in 
a permanent organisation of workers"</i> and urge <i>"workers to organise 
'spontaneously' at the very moment of revolution"</i> promote a 
<i>"con-trick, designed to leave 'the revolutionary movement,'
so called, in the hands of an educated class . . . [or] so-called 
'revolutionary party' . . . [which] means that the workers are 
only expected to come in the fray when there's any fighting 
to be done, and in normal times leave theorising to the 
specialists or students."</i> [Albert Meltzer, <b>Anarchism: 
Arguments for and Against</b>, pp. 82-3] A self-managed 
society can only be created by 
self-managed means, and as only the practice of self-management 
can ensure its success, the need for libertarian popular 
organisations is essential. Syndicalism is seen as the key 
way working people can prepare themselves for revolution and 
learn to direct their own lives. In this way syndicalism 
creates a true politics of the people, 
one that does not create a parasitic class of politicians and 
bureaucrats (<i>"We wish to emancipate ourselves, to free ourselves"</i>, 
Pelloutier wrote, <i>"but we do not wish to carry out a revolution, 
to risk our skin, to put Pierre the socialist in the place of 
Paul the radical"</i> [quoted by Jeremy Jennings, <b>Syndicalism
in France</b>, p. 17]).
</p><p>
This does not mean that syndicalists do not support organisations 
spontaneously created by workers' in struggle  (such as workers' 
councils, factory committees and so on). Far from it. Syndicalists 
have played important roles in these kinds of organisation (as can 
be seen from the Russian Revolution, the factory occupations in 
Italy in 1920, the British Shop Steward movement and so on). This is 
because syndicalism acts as a catalyst to militant labour 
struggles and serves to counteract class-collaborationist 
tendencies by union bureaucrats and "socialist" politicians. 
Part of this activity must involve encouraging self-managed 
organisations where none exist and so syndicalists support 
and encourage all such spontaneous movements, hoping that 
they turn into the basis of a syndicalist union movement or 
a successful revolution. Moreover, most anarcho-syndicalists 
recognise that it is unlikely that every worker, nor even 
the majority, will be in syndicalist unions before a 
revolutionary period starts. This means <b>new</b> organisations,
created spontaneously by workers in struggle, would have to be 
the framework of social struggle and the post-capitalist society 
rather than the syndicalist union as such. All the syndicalist 
union can do is provide a practical example of how to organise 
in a libertarian way within capitalism and statism and support 
spontaneously created organisations.
</p><p>
It should be noted that while the term "syndicalism" dates 
from the 1890s in France, the ideas associated with these names 
have a longer history. Anarcho-syndicalist ideas have developed 
independently in many different countries and times. Indeed, anyone 
familiar with Bakunin's work will quickly see that much of his 
ideas prefigure what was latter to become known by these terms. 
Similarly, we find that the American <b>International Working 
People's Association</b> organised by anarchists in the 1880s 
<i>"anticipated by some twenty years the doctrine of anarcho-syndicalism"</i> 
and <i>"[m]ore than merely resembling the 'Chicago Idea' [of the 
<b>IWPA</b>], the IWW's principles of industrial unionism resulted 
from the conscious efforts of anarchists . . . who continued to affirm 
. . . the principles which the Chicago anarchists gave their lives 
defending."</i> [Salvatore Salerno, <b>Red November, Black November</b>, 
p. 51 and p. 79] See <a href="secH2.html#sech28">section H.2.8</a> for 
a discussion of why Marxist claims that syndicalism and anarchism are 
unrelated are obviously false.
</p><p>
(We must stress that we are <b>not</b> arguing that Bakunin 
"invented" syndicalism. Far from it. Rather, we are arguing 
that Bakunin expressed ideas already developed in working 
class circles and became, if you like, the "spokesperson" 
for these libertarian tendencies in the labour movement as 
well as helping to clarifying these ideas in many ways. 
As Emma Goldman argued, the <i>"feature which distinguishes 
Syndicalism from most philosophies is that it represents 
the revolutionary philosophy of labour conceived and born 
in the actual struggle and experience of workers themselves 
-- not in universities, colleges, libraries, or in the 
brain of some scientists."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 88-9] This 
applies equally to Bakunin and the first International).
</p><p>
Given this, we must also point out here that while syndicalism has 
anarchist roots, not all syndicalists are anarchists. A few Marxists 
have been syndicalists, particularly in the USA where the followers 
of Daniel De Leon supported Industrial Unionism and helped form the 
<b>Industrial Workers of the World</b>. The Irish socialist James 
Connelly was also a Marxist-syndicalist, as was Big Bill Haywood who 
was a leader of the IWW and a leading member of the US Socialist 
Party. Marxist-syndicalists are generally in favour of more centralisation
within syndicalist unions (the IWW was by far the most centralised 
syndicalist union) and often argue that a political party is required to
complement the work of the union. Needless to say, anarcho-syndicalists 
disagree, arguing that centralisation kills the spirit of revolt and 
weakens a unions real strength and that political parties are both 
ineffective when compared to militant unionism and a constant source
of corruption. [Rocker, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 55-60] So not all 
syndicalists are anarchists, leading those anarchists who are 
syndicalists often use the term "anarcho-syndicalism" to indicate that 
they are both anarchists and syndicalists as well as to stress the 
libertarian roots and syndicalism. In addition, not all anarchists 
are syndicalists. We discuss the reasons for this in the 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj39">next section</a>. 
</p><p>
For more information on anarcho-syndicalist ideas, Rudolf Rocker's 
<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b> is still the classic introduction to the 
subject. The collection of articles by British syndicalist Tom Brown
entitled <b>Syndicalism</b> is also worth reading. Daniel Guerin's 
<b>No Gods, No Masters</b> contains articles by leading French 
syndicalist thinkers. 
</p>

<a name="secj39"><h2>J.3.9 Why are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?</h2></a>

<p>
Before discussing why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists, 
we must clarify a few points first. Let us be clear, non-syndicalist 
anarchists usually support the ideas of workplace organisation and 
struggle, of direct action, of solidarity and so on. Thus most 
non-syndicalist anarchists do not disagree with anarcho-syndicalists 
on these issues. Indeed, many even support the creation of syndicalist 
unions. Thus many anarcho-communists like Alexander Berkman, Errico 
Malatesta and Emma Goldman supported anarcho-syndicalist organisations 
and even, like Malatesta, helped form such revolutionary union 
federations (namely, the FORA in Argentina) and urged 
anarchists to take a leading role in organising unions. So when 
we use the term "non-syndicalist anarchist" we are not suggesting 
that these anarchists reject all aspects of anarcho-syndicalism. 
Rather, they are critical of certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalist 
ideas while supporting the rest.
</p><p>
In the past, a few communist-anarchists <b>did</b> oppose the struggle for 
improvements within capitalism as "reformist." However, these were 
few and far between and with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism in the 
1890s, the vast majority of communist-anarchists recognised that 
only by encouraging the struggle for reforms would people take them
seriously as this showed the benefits of anarchist tactics and
organisation in practice so ensuring anarchist ideas grow in influence. Thus
syndicalism was a healthy response to the rise of "abstract revolutionarism"
that infected the anarchist movement during the 1880s, particularly in
France and Italy. Thus communist-anarchists agree with syndicalists
on the importance of struggling for and winning reforms and 
improvements within capitalism by direct action and solidarity.
</p><p>
Similarly, anarchists like Malatesta also recognised the importance of
mass organisations like unions. As he argued, <i>"to encourage popular
organisations of all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic 
ideas . . . An authoritarian party, which aims at capturing power 
to impose its ideas, has an interest in the people remaining an 
amorphous mass, unable to act for themselves and therefore easily 
dominated . . . But we anarchists do not want to <b>emancipate</b> the 
people; we want the people to <b>emancipate themselves</b> . . . we 
want the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people and 
correspond to the state of their development and advance as they 
advance."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 90] 
This can only occur when there are popular organisations, like 
trade unions, within which people can express themselves, come to 
common agreements and act. Moreover, these organisations must be 
autonomous, self-governing, be libertarian in nature <b>and</b> be
independent of all parties and organisations (including anarchist 
ones). The similarity with anarcho-syndicalist ideas is striking.
</p><p>
So why, if this is the case, are many anarchists not 
anarcho-syndicalists? There are two main reasons for this. 
First, there is the question of whether unions are, by their 
nature, revolutionary organisations. Second, whether syndicalist 
unions are sufficient to create anarchy by themselves. We will
discuss each in turn.
</p><p>
As can be seen from any country, the vast majority of unions are deeply
reformist and bureaucratic in nature. They are centralised, with power
resting at the top in the hands of officials. This suggests that in 
themselves unions are not revolutionary. As Malatesta argued, this 
is to be expected for <i>"all movements founded on material and immediate 
interests (and a mass working class movement cannot be founded on 
anything else), if the ferment, the drive and the unremitting efforts 
of men [and women] of ideas struggling and making sacrifices for an 
ideal future are lacking, tend to adapt themselves to circumstances, 
foster a conservative spirit, and fear of change in those who manage 
to improve their conditions, and often end up by creating new 
privileged classes and serving to support and consolidate the 
system one would want to destroy."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 113-4]
</p><p>
If we look at the <b>role</b> of the union within capitalist society we 
see that in order for it to work, it must offer a reason for the boss 
to recognise and negotiate with it. This means that the union must
be able to offer the boss something in return for any reforms it gets, 
namely labour discipline. In return for an improvement in wages or 
conditions, the union must be able to get workers to agree to submit 
to the contracts the union signs with their boss. In other words, they 
must be able to control their members -- stop them fighting the boss -- 
if they are to have anything with which to bargain with. This results 
in the union becoming a third force in industry, with interests 
separate than the workers which it claims to represent. The role 
of unionism as a seller of labour power means that it often has
to make compromises, compromises it has to make its members
agree to. This necessities a tendency for power to be taken from
the rank and file of the unions and centralised in the hands of
officials at the top of the organisation. This ensures that <i>"the
workers organisation becomes what it must perforce be in a 
capitalist society -- a means not of refusing to recognise and
overthrowing the bosses, but simply for hedging round and 
limiting the bosses' power."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>The Anarchist
Revolution</b>, p. 29]
</p><p>
Anarcho-syndicalists are aware of this problem. That is why their
unions are decentralised, self-managed and organised from the
bottom up in a federal manner. As Durruti argued: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"No anarchists in the union committees unless at the ground level. 
In these committees, in case of conflict with the boss, the militant 
is forced to compromise to arrive at an agreement. The contracts 
and activities which come from being in this position, push the 
militant towards bureaucracy. Conscious of this risk, we do not
wish to run it. Our role is to analyse from the bottom the different 
dangers which can beset a union organisation like ours. No 
militant should prolong his job in committees, beyond the time
allotted to him. No permanent and indispensable people."</i> 
[quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Durruti: The People Armed</b>, p. 183]
</blockquote></p><p>
However, structure is rarely enough in itself to undermine the 
bureaucratic tendencies created by the role of unions in the 
capitalist economy. While such libertarian structures can slow 
down the tendency towards bureaucracy, non-syndicalist 
anarchists argue that they cannot stop it. They point to 
the example of the French CGT which had become reformist
by 1914 (the majority of other syndicalist unions were crushed 
by fascism or communism before they had a chance to develop 
fully). Even the Spanish CNT (by far the most successful
anarcho-syndicalist union) suffered from the problem of
reformism, causing the anarchists in the union to organise
the FAI in 1927 to combat it (which it did, very successfully).
According to Jose Peirats, the <i>"participation of the anarchist 
group in the mass movement CNT helped to ensure that CNT's
revolutionary nature."</i> This indicates the validity of Malatesta's 
arguments concerning the need for anarchists to remain distinct of 
the unions organisationally while working within them -- just as
Peirat's comment that <i>"[b]linkered by participation in union 
committees, the FAI became incapable of a wider vision"</i> indicates 
the validity of Malatesta's warnings against anarchists taking 
positions of responsibility in unions! [<b>Anarchists in the 
Spanish Revolution</b>, p. 241 and pp. 239-40]
</p><p>
Moreover, even the structure of syndicalist unions can cause 
problems: <i>"In modelling themselves structurally on the bourgeois 
economy, the syndicalist unions tended to become the organisational 
counterparts of the very centralised apparatus they professed to 
oppose. By pleading the need to deal effectively with the tightly 
knit bourgeoisie and state machinery, reformist leaders in 
syndicalist unions often had little difficulty in shifting 
organisational control from the bottom to the top."</i> [Murray
Bookchin, <b>The Spanish Anarchists</b>, p. 123] 
</p><p>
In addition, as the syndicalist unions grow in size and influence their 
initial radicalism is usually watered-down. This is because, <i>"since 
the unions must remain open to all those who desire to win from
the masters better conditions of life, whatever their opinions may
be . . ., they are naturally led to moderate their aspirations, 
first so that they should not frighten away those they wish to have
with them, and because, in proportion as numbers increase, those
with ideas who have initiated the movement remain buried in
a majority that is only occupied with the petty interests of 
the moment."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>Anarchism and Syndicalism</b>, 
p. 150] Which, ironically given that increased self-management is 
seen as a way of reducing tendencies towards bureaucracy, means 
that syndicalist unions have a tendency towards reformism simply
because the majority of their members will be non-revolutionary
if the union grows in size in non-revolutionary times (as can
be seen from the development of the Swedish syndicalist union
the SAC).
</p><p>
So, if the union's militant strategy succeeds in winning reforms, 
more and more workers will join it. This influx of non-libertarians 
must, in a self-managed organisation, exert a de-radicalising 
influence on the unions politics and activities in 
non-revolutionary times. The syndicalist would argue that the 
process of struggling for reforms combined with the educational 
effects of participation and self-management will reduce this 
influence and, of course, they are right. However, non-syndicalist
anarchists would counter this by arguing that the libertarian influences
generated by struggle and participation would be strengthened by the
work of anarchist groups and, without this work, the de-radicalising
influences would outweigh the libertarian ones. In addition, the
success of a syndicalist union must be partly determined by the
general level of class struggle. In periods of great struggle, the
membership will be more radical than in quiet periods and it is 
quiet periods which cause the most difficulties for syndicalist unions.
With a moderate membership the revolutionary aims and tactics of
the union will also become moderate. As one academic writer on
French syndicalism put it, syndicalism <i>"was always based on workers
acting in the economic arena to better their conditions, build
class consciousness, and prepare for revolution. The need to survive
and build a working-class movement had always forced syndicalists 
to adapt themselves to the exigencies of the moment."</i> [Barbara
Mitchell, <i>"French Syndicalism: An Experiment in Practical Anarchism"</i>,
pp. 25-41, <b>Revolutionary Syndicalism</b>, Marcel van der Linden and 
Wayne Thorpe (eds.), p. 25]
</p><p>
As can be seen from the history of many syndicalist unions (and, 
obviously, mainstream unions too) this seems to be the case -- the 
libertarian tendencies are outweighed by the de-radicalising ones.
This can also be seen from the issue of collective bargaining:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The problem of collective bargaining foreshadowed the difficulty
of maintaining syndicalist principles in developed capitalist
societies. Many organisations within the international syndicalist
movement initially repudiated collective agreements with employers
on the grounds that by a collaborative sharing of responsibility
for work discipline, such agreements would expand bureaucratisation
within the unions, undermine revolutionary spirit, and restrict
the freedom of action that workers were always to maintain
against the class enemy. From an early date, however, sometimes
after a period of suspicion and resistance, many workers gave
up this position. In the early decades of the century it
became clear that to maintain or gain a mass membership,
syndicalist unions had to accept collective bargaining."</i> 
[Marcel van der Linden and Wayne Thorpe, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 19]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus, for most anarchists, <i>"the Trade Unions are, by their 
very nature reformist and never revolutionary. The revolutionary 
spirit must be introduced, developed and maintained by the constant 
actions of revolutionaries who work from within their ranks as well 
as from outside, but it cannot be the normal, natural definition of 
the Trade Unions function."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Errico Malatesta: 
His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 117] 
</p><p>
This does not mean that anarchists should not work within labour
organisations. Nor does it mean rejecting anarcho-syndicalist 
unions as an anarchist tactic. Far from it. Rather it is a case 
of recognising these organisations for what they are, reformist 
organisations which are not an end in themselves but one (albeit, 
important) means of preparing the way for the achievement 
of anarchism. Neither does it mean that anarchists should not try 
to make labour organisations as anarchistic as possible or have 
anarchist objectives. Working within the labour movement (at the 
rank and file level, of course) is essential to gain influence for 
anarchist ideas, just as is working with unorganised workers. But 
this does not mean that the unions are revolutionary by their 
very nature, as syndicalism implies. As history shows, and 
as syndicalists themselves are aware, the vast majority of unions 
are reformist. Non-syndicalist anarchists argue there is a reason 
for that and syndicalist unions are not immune to these tendencies 
just because they call themselves revolutionary. Due to these 
tendencies, non-syndicalist anarchists stress the need to organise 
as anarchists first and foremost in order to influence the class 
struggle and encourage the creation of autonomous workplace and 
community organisations to fight that struggle. Rather than fuse 
the anarchist and working class movement, non-syndicalist anarchists 
stress the importance of anarchists organising as anarchists to 
influence the working class movement.
</p><p>
All this does not mean that purely anarchist organisations or 
individual anarchists cannot become reformist. Of course they
can (just look at the Spanish FAI which along with the CNT
co-operated with the state during the Spanish Revolution). 
However, unlike syndicalist unions, the anarchist organisation
is not pushed towards reformism due to its role within 
society. That is an important difference -- the institutional
factors are not present for the anarchist federation as they
are for the syndicalist union federation.
</p><p>
The second reason why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists
is the question of whether syndicalist unions are sufficient in 
themselves to create anarchy. Pierre Monatte, a French syndicalist,
argued that <i>"Syndicalism, as the [CGT's] Congress of Amiens 
proclaimed in 1906, is sufficient unto itself"</i> as <i>"the working
class, having at last attained majority, means to be self-sufficient
and to rely on no-one else for its emancipation."</i> [<b>The Anarchist
Reader</b>, p. 219]
</p><p>
This idea of self-sufficiency means that the anarchist and the syndicalist 
movement must be fused into one, with syndicalism taking the role of 
both anarchist group and labour union. Thus a key difference between 
anarcho-syndicalists and other anarchists is over the question of the 
need for a specifically anarchist organisation. While most anarchists 
are sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism, few totally subscribe to 
anarcho-syndicalist ideas in their pure form. This is because, in 
its pure form, syndicalism rejects the idea of anarchist groups 
and instead considers the union as <b>the</b> focal point of social 
struggle and anarchist activism. However, an anarcho-syndicalist may
support a specific anarchist federation to work within the union and
outside. 
</p><p>
So anarchists critical of anarcho-syndicalism are also active in 
the labour movement, working with the rank and file while keeping 
their own identity as anarchists and organising as anarchists. Thus 
Malatesta: <i>"In the past I deplored that the comrades isolated 
themselves from the working-class movement. Today I deplore that 
many of us, falling into the contrary extreme, let themselves be 
swallowed up in the same movement."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 225] In the eyes of other anarchists anarcho-syndicalism in its
"pure" (revolutionary syndicalist) form makes the error of confusing 
the anarchist and union movement and so ensures that the resulting 
movement can do neither work well: <i>"Every fusion or confusion 
between the anarchist movement and the trade union movement ends, 
either in rendering the later unable to carry out its specific task 
or by weakening, distorting, or extinguishing the anarchist spirit."</i> 
[Malatesta, <b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 123]
</p><p>
Most anarchists agree with Malatesta when he argued that <i>"anarchists
must not want the Trade Unions to be anarchist, but they must act
within their ranks in favour of anarchist aims, as individuals, as
groups and as federations of groups. . . [I]n the situation as it is,
and recognising that the social development of one's workmates 
is what it is, the anarchist groups should not expect the workers'
organisation to act as if they were anarchist, but should make 
every effort to induce them to approximate as much as possible
to the anarchist method."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 124-5] Given 
that it appears to be the case that labour unions <b>are</b> by nature
reformist, they cannot be expected to be enough in themselves
when creating a free society. Hence the need for anarchists to
organise <b>as anarchists</b> as well as alongside their fellow workers
as workers in order to spread anarchist ideas on tactics and aims.
This activity within existing unions does not necessarily mean 
attempting to "reform" the union in a libertarian manner (although 
some anarchists would support this approach). Rather it means 
working with the rank and file of the unions and trying to 
create autonomous workplace organisations, independent of
the trade union bureaucracy and organised in a libertarian way. 
</p><p>
This involves creating anarchist organisations separate from but 
which (in part) work within the labour movement for anarchist 
ends.  Let us not forget that the syndicalist organisation is the 
union, it organises all workers regardless of their politics. A 
"union" which just let anarchists join would not be a union, 
it would be an anarchist group organised in the workplace. As
anarcho-syndicalists themselves are aware, an anarcho-syndicalist
union is not the same as a union of anarcho-syndicalists. How can
we expect an organisation made up of non-anarchists be totally
anarchist? Due to this, tendencies always appeared within syndicalist 
unions that were reformist and because of this most anarchists, 
including many anarcho-syndicalists we must note, argue that 
there is a need for anarchists to work within the rank and file
of the unions to spread their anarchist ideals and aims, and this 
implies anarchist organisations separate from the labour movement, 
even if that movement is based on syndicalist unions.
</p><p> 
As Bakunin argued, the anarchist organisation <i>"is the necessary 
complement to the International [i.e. the union federation]. But 
the International and the Alliance [the anarchist federation], 
while having the same ultimate aims, perform different functions. 
The International endeavours to unify the working masses . . . 
regardless of nationality or religious and political beliefs, 
into one compact body: the Alliance, on the other hand, tries 
to give these masses a really revolutionary direction."</i> This 
did not mean that the Alliance was imposing a foreign theory 
onto the members of the unions, because the <i>"programs of one 
and the other . . . differ only in the degree of their 
revolutionary development . . . The program of the Alliance 
represents the fullest unfolding of the International."</i> 
[<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 157] Nor did it imply that 
anarchists think that unions and other forms of popular organisations 
should be controlled by anarchists. Far from it! Anarchists are the 
strongest supporters of the autonomy of all popular organisations. As 
we indicated in <a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>, 
anarchists desire to influence popular 
organisations by the strength of our ideas within the rank and 
file and <b>not</b> by imposing our ideas on them.
</p><p>
In addition to these major points of disagreement, there are minor ones 
as well. For example, many anarchists dislike the emphasis syndicalists
place on the workplace and see <i>"in syndicalism a shift in focus from the
commune to the trade union, from all of the oppressed to the industrial
proletariat alone, from the streets to the factories, and, in emphasis at
least, from insurrection to the general strike."</i> [Bookchin, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 123] However, most anarcho-syndicalists are
well aware that life exists outside the workplace and so this disagreement
is largely one of emphasis. Similarly, many anarchists disagreed with the 
early syndicalist argument that a general strike was enough to create a 
revolution. They argued, with Malatesta in the forefront, that while a 
general strike would be <i>"an excellent means for starting the social 
revolution"</i> it would be wrong to think that it made <i>"armed 
insurrection unnecessary"</i> since the <i>"first to die of hunger during
a general strike would not be the bourgeois, who dispose of all the stores,
but the workers."</i> In order for this <b>not</b> to occur, the workers 
would need to <i>"take over production"</i> which are protected by the 
police and armed forces and this meant <i>"insurrection."</i> [Malatesta, 
<b>The Anarchist Reader</b>, pp. 223-4] Again, however, most modern 
syndicalists accept this to be the case and see the <i>"expropriatory
general strike,"</i> in the words of French syndicalist Pierre Besnard, 
as <i>"clearly <b>insurrectional.</b>"</i> [quoted by Vernon Richards, 
<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 288] We mention this 
purely to counter Leninist claims that syndicalists subscribe to the 
same ones they did in the 1890s.
</p><p>
Despite our criticisms we should recognise that the difference between
anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are slight and (often) just a case 
of emphasis. Most anarchists support anarcho-syndicalist unions where
they exist and often take a key role in creating and organising them. 
Similarly, many self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists also support 
specific organisations of anarchists to work within and outwith the
syndicalist union. Syndicalist unions, where they exist, are far 
more progressive than any other union. Not only are they democratic 
unions and create an atmosphere where anarchist ideas are listened 
to with respect but they also organise and fight in a way that breaks 
down the divisions into leaders and led, doers and watchers. On its 
own this is very good but not good enough. For non-syndicalist 
anarchists, the missing element is an organisation winning support 
for anarchist ideas and tactics both within revolutionary unions and 
everywhere else working class people come together. 
</p><p>
For a further information on the anarchist criticism of syndicalism, we
can suggest no better source than the writings of Errico Malatesta.
The books <b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b> and <b>The 
Anarchist Revolution</b> contain Malatesta's viewpoints on anarchism, 
syndicalism and how anarchists should work within the labour movement.
<b>The Anarchist Reader</b> contains the famous debate between the
syndicalist Pierre Monatte and Malatesta at the International
Anarchist conference in Amsterdam in 1907. 
</p>

</body>
</html>