File: secH2.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 14.0-3
links: PTS, VCS
area: main
in suites: jessie, jessie-kfreebsd
size: 12,256 kB
ctags: 618
sloc: makefile: 12
file content (5219 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 327,753 bytes
<html>
<head>

<title>
H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?
</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?</h1>

<p>
Many people involved in politics will soon discover that Marxist groups 
(particularly Leninist ones) organise "debates"</i> about anarchism. These 
meetings are usually entitled <i>"Marxism and Anarchism"</i> and are 
usually organised after anarchists have been active in the area or have 
made the headlines somewhere.
</p><p>
These meetings, contrary to common sense, are usually not 
a debate as (almost always) no anarchists are invited to 
argue the anarchist viewpoint and, therefore, they present 
a one-sided account of <i>"Marxism and Anarchism"</i> in a 
manner which benefits the organisers. Usually, the format 
is a speaker distorting anarchist ideas and history for a 
long period of time (both absolutely in terms of the length 
of the meeting and relatively in terms of the boredom 
inflicted on the unfortunate attendees). It will soon 
become obvious to those attending that any such meeting is 
little more than an unprincipled attack on anarchism with 
little or no relationship to what anarchism is actually 
about. Those anarchists who attend such meetings usually 
spend most of their allotted (usually short) speaking time 
refuting the nonsense that is undoubtedly presented. Rather 
than a <b>real</b> discussion between the differences between
anarchism and "Marxism" (i.e. Leninism), the meeting simply
becomes one where anarchists correct the distortions and
misrepresentations of the speaker in order to create the
basis of a real debate. If the reader does not believe 
this summary we would encourage them to attend such a 
meeting and see for themselves.
</p><p>
Needless to say, we cannot hope to reproduce the many distortions
produced in such meetings. However, when anarchists do hit the
headlines (such as in the 1990 poll tax riot in London and the
anti-globalisation movement of the late 1990s and early 2000s), 
various Marxist papers will produce articles on "Anarchism" as well. 
Like the meetings, the articles are full of so many elementary errors 
that it takes a lot of effort to think they are the product of ignorance
rather than a conscious desire to lie (the appendix 
<a href="append3.html"><i>"Anarchism and Marxism"</i></a> 
contains a few replies to such articles). In addition, many of the 
founding fathers of Marxism (and Leninism) also decided to
attack anarchism in similar ways, so this activity does have
a long tradition in Marxist circles (particularly in Leninist
and Trotskyist ones). Sadly, Max Nettlau's comments on Marx
and Engels are applicable to many of their followers today.
He argued that they <i>"acted with that shocking lack of honesty
which was characteristic of <b>all</b> their polemics. They worked
with inadequate documentation, which, according to their custom,
they supplemented with arbitrary declarations and conclusions
- accepted as truth by their followers although they were 
exposed as deplorable misrepresentations, errors and unscrupulous
perversions of the truth."</i> [<b>A Short History of Anarchism</b>, 
p. 132] As the reader will discover, this summary has not lost its
relevance today. If you read Marxist "critiques" of anarchism
you will soon discover the same repetition of "accepted" truths,
the same inadequate documentation, the same arbitrary declarations
and conclusions as well as an apparent total lack of familiarity
with the source material they claim to be analysing.
</p><p>
This section of the FAQ lists and refutes many of the most
common distortions Marxists make with regards to anarchism. As 
will become clear, many of the most common Marxist attacks
on anarchism have little or no basis in fact but have simply
been repeated so often by Marxists that they have entered 
the ideology (the idea that anarchists think the capitalist
class will just disappear being, probably, the most famous
one).
</p><p>
Moreover, Marxists make many major and minor distortions of anarchist theory 
in passing. For example, Eric Hobsbawm wrote of the <i>"extremism of the 
anarchist rejection of state and organisation"</i> while being well aware, 
as a leading Marxist historian, of numerous anarchist organisations. 
[<b>Revolutionaries</b>, p. 113] This kind of nonsense has a long history, 
with Engels asserting in his infamous diatribe <i>"The Bakuninists at 
work"</i> that Bakunin <i>"[a]s early as September 1870 (in his <b>Lettres 
a un francais</b> [Letters to a Frenchman]) . . . had declared that the 
only way to drive the Prussians out of France by a revolutionary struggle 
was to do away with all forms of centralised leadership and leave each town, 
each village, each parish to wage war on its own."</i> For Engels anarchist 
federalism <i>"consisted precisely in the fact that each town acted on its 
own, declaring that the important thing was not co-operation with other towns 
but separation from them, this precluding any possibility of a combined attack."</i> 
This meant <i>"the fragmentation and isolation of the revolutionary forces 
which enabled the government troops to smash one revolt after the other."</i> 
According to Engels, the anarchists <i>"proclaimed [this] a principle of 
supreme revolutionary wisdom."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 23, p. 592] 
</p><p>
In fact, the truth is totally different. Bakunin did, of course, 
reject <i>"centralised leadership"</i> as it would be <i>"necessarily 
very circumscribed, very short-sighted, and its limited perception cannot, 
therefore, penetrate the depth and encompass the whole complex range of 
popular life."</i> However, it is a falsehood to state that he denied
the need for co-ordination of struggles and federal organisations 
from the bottom up. As he put it, the revolution must <i>"foster the 
self-organisation of the masses into autonomous bodies, federated from 
the bottom upwards."</i> With regards to the peasants, he thought they 
will <i>"come to an understanding, and form some kind of organisation 
. . . to further their mutual interests . . . the necessity to defend 
their homes, their families, and their own lives against unforeseen 
attack . . . will undoubtedly soon compel them to contract new and mutually 
suitable arrangements."</i> The peasants would be <i>"freely organised 
from the bottom up."</i> Rather than deny the need for co-ordination,
Bakunin stressed it: <i>"the peasants, like the industrial city workers, 
should unite by federating the fighting battalions, district by district, 
assuring a common co-ordinated defence against internal and external 
enemies."</i> [<i>"Letters to a Frenchman on the present crisis"</i>, 
<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 196, p. 206, p. 207 and p. 190] In 
this he repeated his earlier arguments concerning social revolution - 
arguments that Engels was well aware of. 
</p><p>
In other words, Engels deliberately misrepresented Bakunin's ideas while 
being an attack on federalism when, in fact, federalism was <b>not</b> 
actually implemented. It should also be mentioned that Engels opposed 
the Spanish workers rising in revolt in the first place. <i>"A few 
years of peaceful bourgeois republic,"</i> he argued, <i>"would prepare 
the ground in Spain for a proletarian revolution"</i> and <i>"instead 
of staging isolated, easily crushed rebellions,"</i> he hoped that the 
<i>"Spanish workers will make use of the republic"</i> with a <i>"view 
to an approaching revolution."</i> He ended by asking them not to give 
the bourgeois government <i>"an excuse to suppress the revolutionary 
movement."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 420-1] In his post-revolt diatribe, 
Engels repeated this analysis and suggested that the "Bakuninists" 
should have simply stood for election:</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"At quiet times, when the proletariat knows beforehand that at best it can get 
only a few representatives to parliament and have no chance whatever of winning 
a parliamentary majority, the workers may sometimes be made to believe that it 
is a great revolutionary action to sit out the elections at home, and in general, 
not to attack the State in which they live and which oppresses them, but to 
attack the State as such which exists nowhere and which accordingly cannot 
defend itself."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 583]
</blockquote></p><p>
For some reason, few Leninist quote these recommendations to the Spanish workers
nor do they dwell on the reformist and bureaucratic nature of the Socialist party
inspired by this advice. As we discuss in <a href="secH3.html#sech310">section H.3.10</a>,
the notion that voting in elections was to <i>"attack the State"</i> fits in well 
with the concept that universal suffrage equalled the <i>"political power"</i> of the 
proletariat and the democratic republic was the <i>"specific form"</i> of its 
dictatorship. Again, for some strange reason, few Leninists mention that either. 
</p><p>
The distortions can be somewhat ironic, as can be seen when Trotsky asserted 
in 1937 that anarchists are <i>"willing to replace Bakunin's patriarchal 
'federation of free communes' by the more modern federation of free soviets."</i> 
[<b>Writings 1936-37</b>, p. 487] It is hard to know where to start in this 
incredulous rewriting of history. Firstly, Bakunin's federation of free 
communes was, in fact, based on workers' councils ("soviets") - see 
<a href="secI2.html#seci23">section I.2.3</a>. As for the charge of 
supporting <i>"patriarchal"</i> communes, nothing could be further from 
the truth. In his discussion of the Russian peasant commune (the mir) 
Bakunin argued that <i>"patriarchalism"</i> was one of its <i>"three dark 
features,"</i> indeed <i>"the main historical evil . . . against which we 
are obliged to struggle with all our might."</i> This <i>"evil"</i>, he
stressed, <i>"has distorted the whole of Russian life"</i> and the
<i>"despotism of the father"</i> turned the family <i>"into a school
of triumphant force and tyranny, of daily domestic baseness and depravity."</i>
The <i>"same patriarchal principle, the same vile despotism, and the
same base obedience prevail within"</i> the peasant commune. Any 
revolt against <i>"the hated state power and bureaucratic arbitrariness
. . . simultaneously becomes a revolt against the despotism of the
commune."</i> The <i>"war against patriarchalism is now being waged 
in virtually every village and every family."</i>[<b>Statism and
Anarchy</b>, p. 206, pp. 209-10, p. 210 and p. 214] 
</p><p>
As can be seen Trotsky's summary of Bakunin's ideas is totally wrong. 
Not only did his ideas on the organisation of the free commune as a 
federation of workers' associations predate the soviets by decades, he 
also argued against patriarchal relationships and urged their destruction 
in the Russian peasant commune (and elsewhere). Indeed, if any one fits
Trotsky's invention it is Marx, not Bakunin. After all, Marx came round 
(eventually) to Bakunin's position that the peasant commune could be the 
basis for Russia to jump straight to socialism (and so by-passing capitalism) 
but without Bakunin's critical analysis of that institution and its patriarchal 
and other <i>"dark"</i> features. Similarly, Marx never argued that the future 
socialist society would be based on workers' associations and their federation 
(i.e. workers' councils). His vision of revolution was formulated in typically 
bourgeois structures such as the Paris Commune's municipal council.
</p><p>
We could go on, but space precludes discussing every example. Suffice to 
say, it is not wise to take any Marxist assertion of anarchist thought or 
history at face value. A common technique is to quote anarchist writers out 
of context or before they become anarchists. For example, Marxist Paul Thomas 
argues that Bakunin favoured <i>"blind destructiveness"</i> and yet quotes
more from Bakunin's pre-anarchist works (as well as Russian nihilists) than 
Bakunin's anarchist works to prove his claim. Similarly, Thomas claims that 
Bakunin <i>"defended the <b>federes</b> of the Paris Commune of 1871 on the 
grounds that they were strong enough to dispense with theory altogether,"</i> 
yet his supporting quote clearly does not, in fact, say this. [<b>Karl Marx 
and the Anarchists</b>, pp. 288-90 and p. 285] What Bakunin was, in fact, 
arguing was simply that theory must progress from experience and that any 
attempt to impose a theory on society would be doomed to create a 
<i>"Procrustean bed"</i> as no government could <i>"embrace the infinite 
multiplicity and diversity of the real aspirations, wishes and needs whose 
sum total constitutes the collective will of a people."</i> He explicitly 
contrasted the Marxist system of <i>"want[ing] to impose science upon the 
people"</i> with the anarchist desire <i>"to diffuse science and knowledge 
among the people, so that the various groups of human society, when convinced 
by propaganda, may organise and spontaneously combine into federations, in 
accordance with their natural tendencies and their real interests, but never 
according to a plan traced in advance and <b>imposed upon the ignorant masses</b>
by a few 'superior' minds."</i> [<b>The Political Theory of Bakunin</b>, p. 300] 
A clear misreading of Bakunin's argument but one which fits nicely into Marxist 
preconceptions of Bakunin and anarchism in general.
</p><p>
This tendency to quote out of context or from periods when anarchists were 
not anarchists probably explains why so many of these Marxist accounts of 
anarchism are completely lacking in references. Take, for example, the British 
SWP's Pat Stack who, in the face of stiff competition, wrote one of the most 
inaccurate diatribes against anarchism the world has had the misfortunate to 
see (namely <i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i> [<b>Socialist Review</b>, no. 246]). 
There is not a single reference in the whole article, which is just as well, 
given the inaccuracies contained in it. Without references, the reader would 
not be able to discover for themselves the distortions and simple errors 
contained in it. 
</p><p>
For example, Stack asserts that Bakunin <i>"claimed a purely 'instinctive 
socialism.'"</i> However, the truth is different and this quote from Bakunin 
is one by him comparing himself and Marx in the 1840s! In fact, the 
<b>anarchist</b> Bakunin argued that <i>"instinct as a weapon is not 
sufficient to safeguard the proletariat against the reactionary machinations 
of the privileged classes,"</i> as instinct <i>"left to itself, and inasmuch 
as it has not been transformed into consciously reflected, clearly determined 
thought, lends itself easily to falsification, distortion and deceit."</i>
[<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 215] Bakunin saw the process 
of class struggle as the means of transforming instinct into conscious thought. 
As he put it, the <i>"goal, then, is to make the worker fully aware of what he 
[or she] wants, to unjam within him [or her] a steam of thought corresponding 
to his [or her] instinct."</i> This is done by <i>"a single path, that of 
<b>emancipation through practical action</b>,"</i> by <i>"workers' solidarity 
in their struggle against the bosses,"</i> of <i>"collective struggle of the 
workers against the bosses."</i> This would be complemented by socialist 
organisations <i>"propagandis[ing] its principles."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>,
p. 102, p. 103 and p. 109] Clearly, Stack is totally distorting Bakunin's ideas 
on the subject.
</p><p>
This technique of quoting Bakunin when he spoke about (or when
he wrote in) his pre-anarchist days in the 1840s, i.e. nearly 
20 years <b>before</b> he became an anarchist, or from Proudhon's 
non-anarchist and posthumously published work on property (in which 
Proudhon saw small-scale property as a bulwark against state tyranny) 
to attack anarchism is commonplace. So it is always wise to 
check the source material and any references (assuming that they 
are provided). Only by doing this can it be discovered whether
a quote reflects the opinions of individuals when they were 
anarchists or whether they are referring to periods when they
were no longer, or had not yet become, anarchists.
</p><p>
Ultimately, though, these kinds of articles by Marxists
simply show the ideological nature of their own politics
and say far more about Marxism than anarchism. After all,
if their politics were strong they would not need to
distort anarchist ideas! In addition, these essays are
usually marked by a lot of (usually inaccurate) attacks on
the ideas (or personal failings) of individual anarchists 
(usually Proudhon and Bakunin and sometimes Kropotkin). No 
modern anarchist theorist is usually mentioned, never mind 
discussed. Obviously, for most Marxists, anarchists must 
repeat parrot-like the ideas of these "great men." However, 
while Marxists may do this, anarchists have always rejected 
this approach. We deliberately call ourselves <b>anarchists</b> 
rather than Proudhonists, Bakuninists, Kropotkinists, or 
after any other person. As Malatesta argued in 1876 (the
year of Bakunin's death) <i>"[w]e follow ideas and not men, 
and rebel against this habit of embodying a principle in 
a man."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 198]
</p><p>
Therefore, anarchists, unlike many (most?) Marxists do not 
believe that some prophet wrote down the scriptures in past 
centuries and if only we could reach a correct understanding 
of these writings today we would see the way forward. Chomsky 
put it extremely well: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The whole concept of Marxist or Freudian or anything like 
that is very odd. These concepts belong to the history of 
organised religion. Any living person, no matter how gifted, 
will make some contributions intermingled with error and 
partial understanding. We try to understand and improve on 
their contributions and eliminate the errors. But how can you 
identify yourself as a Marxist, or a Freudian, or an X-ist,
whoever X may be? That would be to treat the person as a God 
to be revered, not a human being whose contributions are to be 
assimilated and transcended. It's a crazy idea, a kind of 
idolatry."</i> [<b>The Chomsky Reader</b>, pp. 29-30]
</blockquote></p><p>
This means that anarchists recognise that any person, no matter
how great or influential, are just human. They make mistakes,
they fail to live up to all the ideals they express, they are
shaped by the society they live in, and so on. Anarchists 
recognise this fact and extract the positive aspects of past
anarchist thinkers, reject the rest and develop what we consider 
the living core of their ideas, learn from history and constantly 
try to bring anarchist ideas up-to-date (after all, a lot has
changed since the days of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin
and this has to be taken into account). As Max Nettlau put it
with regards to Proudhon, <i>"we have to extract from his work
useful teachings that would be of great service to our modern
libertarians, who nevertheless have to find their own way
from theory to practice and to the critique of our present-day
conditions, as Proudhon did in his time. This does not call
for a slavish imitation; it implies using his work to inspire
us and enable us to profit by his experience."</i> [<b>A Short
History of Anarchism</b>, pp. 46-7] Similarly for other anarchists
- we see them as a source of inspiration upon which to build
rather than a template which to copy. This means to attack
anarchism by, say, attacking Bakunin's or Proudhon's personal
failings is to totally miss the point. While anarchists may be
inspired by the ideas of, say, Bakunin or Proudhon it does
not mean we blindly follow all of their ideas. Far from it!
We critically analysis their ideas and keep what is living
and reject what is useless or dead. Sadly, such common sense
is lacking in many who critique anarchism.
</p><p>
However, the typical Marxist approach does have its benefits 
from a political perspective. It is very difficult for Marxists
and Leninists to make an objective criticism of Anarchism for,
as Albert Meltzer pointed out, <i>"by its nature it undermines 
all the suppositions basic to Marxism. Marxism was held out to be 
the basic working class philosophy (a belief which has utterly 
ruined the working class movement everywhere). It holds that the 
industrial proletariat cannot owe its emancipation to anyone but 
themselves alone. It is hard to go back on that and say that the 
working class is not yet ready to dispense with authority placed
over it . . . Marxism normally tries to refrain from criticising 
anarchism as such - unless driven to doing so, when it exposes 
its own authoritarianism . . . and concentrates its attacks not 
on Anarchism, but on Anarchists."</i> [<b>Anarchism: Arguments for 
and Against</b>, p. 62] Needless to say, this technique is the one 
usually applied by Marxists (although, we must stress that usually
their account of the ideas of Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin are 
so distorted that they fail even to do this!).
</p><p>
So anarchist theory has developed since Proudhon, Bakunin and
Kropotkin. At each period in history anarchism advanced in its 
understanding of the world, the anarchism of Bakunin was a 
development of that of Proudhon, these ideas were again 
developed by the anarcho-communists of the 1880s and by
the syndicalists of the 1890's, by the Italian Malatesta,
the Russian Kropotkin, the Mexican Flores Magon and many other 
individuals and movements. Today we stand on their shoulders, 
not at their feet.
</p><p>
As such, to concentrate on the ideas of a few <i>"leaders"</i> misses 
the point totally. While anarchism contains many of the core insights 
of, say, Bakunin, it has also developed them and added to them. 
It has, concretely, taken into account, say, the lessons of the 
Russian and Spanish revolutions and so on. As such, even assuming 
that Marxist accounts of certain aspects of the ideas of Proudhon, 
Bakunin and Kropotkin were correct, they would have to be shown to 
be relevant to modern anarchism to be of any but historical interest.
Sadly, Marxists generally fail to do this and, instead, we are
subject to a (usually inaccurate) history lesson.
</p><p>
In order to understand, learn from and transcend previous theorists 
we must honestly present their ideas. Unfortunately many Marxists 
do not do this and so this section of the FAQ involves correcting 
the many mistakes, distortions, errors and lies that Marxists have
subjected anarchism to. Hopefully, with this done, a real dialogue
can develop between Marxists and anarchists. Indeed, this has 
happened between libertarian Marxists (such as council communists
and Situationists) and anarchists and both tendencies have benefited
from it. Perhaps this dialogue between libertarian Marxists and
anarchists is to be expected, as the mainstream Marxists have often
misrepresented the ideas of libertarian Marxists as well - when not
dismissing them as anarchists!</p>

<a name="sech21"><h2>H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?</h2></a>

<p>
According to many Marxists anarchists either reject the idea 
of defending a revolution or think that it is not necessary. The 
Trotskyists of <b>Workers' Power</b> present a typical Marxist
account of what <b>they</b> consider as anarchist ideas on this
subject:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"the anarchist conclusion is not to build any sort of state
in the first place - not even a democratic workers' state.
But how could we stop the capitalists trying to get their 
property back, something they will definitely try and do?
</p><p>
"Should the people organise to stop the capitalists raising
private armies and resisting the will of the majority? If
the answer is yes, then that organisation - whatever you
prefer to call it - is a state: an apparatus designed to
enable one class to rule over another.
</p><p>
"The anarchists are rejecting something which is necessary
if we are to beat the capitalists and have a chance of
developing a classless society."</i> [<i>"What's wrong with 
anarchism?"</i>, pp. 12-13, <b>World Revolution: Prague S26 2000</b>, 
p. 13]
</blockquote></p><p>
It would be simple to quote Malatesta from 1891 on this issue and 
leave it at that. As he put some seem to suppose <i>"that anarchists,
in the name of their principles, would wish to see that strange 
freedom respected which violates and destroys the freedom and life
of others. They seem almost to believe that after having brought 
down government and private property we would allow both to be 
quietly built up again, because of respect for the <b>freedom</b> 
of those who might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. 
A truly curious way of interpreting our ideas."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, 
pp. 42-3] Pretty much common sense, so you would think! Sadly, this 
appears to not be the case. As such, we have to explain anarchist 
ideas on the defence of a revolution and why this necessity need 
not imply a state and, if it did, then it signifies the end of 
the revolution.
</p><p>
The argument by <b>Workers' Power</b> is very common with the Leninist
left and contains three fallacies, which we expose in turn.  Firstly, 
we have to show that anarchists have always seen the necessity of 
defending a revolution. This shows that the anarchist opposition to 
the <i>"democratic workers' state"</i> (or <i>"dictatorship of the 
proletariat"</i>) has nothing to do with beating the ruling class 
and stopping them regaining their positions of power. Secondly, we 
have to discuss the anarchist and Marxist definitions of what 
constitutes a <i>"state"</i> and show what they have in common and 
how they differ. Thirdly, we must summarise why anarchists oppose 
the idea of a <i>"workers' state"</i> in order for the <b>real</b> 
reasons why anarchists oppose it to be understood. Each issue will 
be discussed in turn.
</p><p>
For revolutionary anarchists, it is a truism that a revolution will 
need to defend itself against counter-revolutionary threats. Bakunin, 
for example, while strenuously objecting to the idea of a <i>"dictatorship 
of the proletariat"</i> also thought a revolution would need to defend itself:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Immediately after established governments have been overthrown, 
communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary 
lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers 
will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune
can defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary to
radiate revolution outward, to raise all of its neighbouring
communes in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common
defence."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 142]
</blockquote></p><p>
And:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute
the Commune . . . there will be a standing federation of the
barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made
up of] delegates . . . invested with binding mandates and
accountable and revocable at all times . . . all provinces,
communes and associations . . . [will] delegate deputies
to an agreed place of assembly (all . . . invested with 
binding mandated and accountable and subject to recall), in 
order to found the federation of insurgent associations,
communes and provinces . . . and to organise a revolutionary
force with the capacity of defeating the reaction . . . it
is through the very act of extrapolation and organisation of
the Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of insurgent
areas that the universality of the Revolution . . . will
emerge triumphant."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 155-6]
</blockquote></p><p>
Malatesta agreed, explicitly pointing to <i>"corps of volunteers 
(anarchist formations)"</i> as a means of defending a revolution 
from <i>"attempts to reduce a free people to a state of slavery 
again."</i> To defend a revolution required <i>"the necessary 
geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above all large masses
of the population willing to go and fight. A government can 
neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and
courage of the latter."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 42] Decades later,
his position had not changed and he was still arguing for the <i>"creation 
of voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as militia in the
life of the community, but only to deal with any armed attacks by 
the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist 
outside intervention"</i> for only <i>"the people in arms, in 
possession of the land, the factories and all the natural wealth"</i> 
could <i>"defend . . . the revolution."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: 
His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 166 and p. 170] 
</p><p>
Alexander Berkman concurred. In his classic introduction to anarchism,
he devoted a whole chapter to the issue which he helpfully entitled <i>"Defense 
of the Revolution"</i>. He noted that it was <i>"your duty, as an Anarchist,
to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion . . . the
social revolution . . . will defend itself against invasion from any
quarter . . . The armed workers and peasants are the only effective 
defence of the revolution. By means of their unions and syndicates 
they must always be on guard against counter-revolutionary attack."</i> 
[<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, pp. 231-2] Emma Goldman clearly and unambiguously 
stated that she had <i>"always insisted that an armed attack on the Revolution
must be met with armed force"</i> and that <i>"an armed counter-revolutionary 
and fascist attack can be met in no way except by an armed defence."</i> 
[<b>Vision on Fire</b>, p. 222 and p. 217] Kropotkin, likewise, took it 
as a given that <i>"a society in which the workers would have a dominant 
voice"</i> would require a revolution to create and <i>"each time that such 
a period of accelerated evolution and reconstruction on a grand scale begins, 
civil war is liable to break out on a small or large scale."</i> The question 
was <i>"how to attain the greatest results with the most limited amount of 
civil war, the smallest number of victims, and a minimum of mutual embitterment."</i> 
To achieve this there was <i>"only one means; namely, that the oppressed part 
of society should obtain the clearest possible conception of what they intend 
to achieve, and how, and that they should be imbued with the enthusiasm which 
is necessary for that achievement."</i> Thus, <i>"there are periods in human 
development when a conflict is unavoidable, and civil war breaks out quite 
independently of the will of particular individuals."</i> [<b>Memiors of a 
Revolutionist</b>, pp. 270-1]
</p><p>
So Durruti, while fighting at the front during the Spanish revolution,
was not saying anything new or against anarchist theory when he stated that 
<i>"the bourgeois won't let us create a libertarian communist society simply 
because we want to. They'll fight back and defend their privileges. The only 
way we can establish libertarian communism is by destroying the bourgeoisie"</i>
[quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Durruti in the Spanish Revolution</b>, p. 484] Clearly, 
anarchism has always recognised the necessity of defending a revolution and 
proposed ideas to ensure it (ideas applied with great success by, for example, 
the Makhnovists in the Ukrainian Revolution and the CNT militias during the 
Spanish). As such, any assertion that anarchism rejects the necessity of 
defending a revolution is simply false. Sadly, it is one Marxists make 
repeatedly (undoubtedly inspired by Engels similar distortions - see 
<a href="secH4.html#sech47">section H.4.7</a>).
</p><p>
Which, of course, brings us to the second assertion, namely that any attempt 
to defend a revolution means that a state has been created (regardless of 
what it may be called). For anarchists, such an argument simply shows that 
Marxists do not really understand what a state is. While the Trotskyist 
definition of a <i>"state"</i> may be (to quote <b>Workers' Power</b>) 
<i>"an apparatus designed to enable one class to rule another,"</i> the 
anarchist definition is somewhat different. Anarchists, of course, do 
not deny that the modern state is (to use Malatesta's excellent expression) 
<i>"the bourgeoisie's servant and <b>gendarme</b>."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 23] 
However, as we discuss in <a href="secH3.html#sech37">section H.3.7</a>, 
the Marxist analysis is superficial and fundamentally metaphysical rather 
than scientific. Anarchists take an evolutionary perspective on the state 
and, as a result, argue that every state that has ever existed has 
defended the power of a minority class and, unsurprisingly, has developed 
certain features to facilitate this. The key one is centralisation of power. 
This ensures that the working people are excluded from the decision making 
process and power remains a tool of the ruling class. As such, the
centralisation of power (while it may take many forms) is the key means 
by which a class system is maintained and, therefore, a key aspect of a 
state. 
</p><p>
As Kropotkin put, the State idea <i>"includes the existence 
of a power situated above society"</i> as well as <i>"a <b>territorial 
concentration</b> as well as the concentration of many functions of the life 
of societies in the hands of a few."</i> It <i>"implies some new relationships
between members of society . . . in order to subject some classes to the 
domination of others"</i> and this becomes obvious <i>"when one studies
the origins of the State."</i> [<b>The State: Its Historic Role</b>, p. 10] 
This was the case with representative democracy:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"To attack the central power, to strip it of its prerogatives,
to decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to abandon
to the people the control of its affairs, to run the risk of a
truly popular revolution. That is why the bourgeoisie sought to
reinforce the central government even more."</i> [Kropotkin,
<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 143]
</blockquote></p><p>
This meant, Kropotkin continued, that the <i>"representative system was 
organised by the bourgeoisie to ensure their domination, and it will 
disappear with them. For the new economic phase that is about to begin 
we must seek a new form of political organisation, based on a principle 
quite different from that of representation. The logic of events imposes 
it."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 125] This suggests that the Marxist notion
that we can use a state (i.e., any centralised and hierarchical social 
structure) to organise and defend a social revolution is based on flawed
reasoning in which it <i>"seems to be taken for granted that Capitalism 
and the workers' movement both have the same end in view. If this were 
so, they might perhaps use the same means; but as the capitalist is out 
to perfect his system of exploitation and government, whilst the worker 
is out for emancipation and liberty, naturally the same means cannot be 
employed for both purposes."</i> [George Barrett, <b>Objections to 
Anarchism</b>, p. 343]
</p><p>
To reproduce in the new society social structures which share the 
same characteristics (such as centralisation and delegation of power)
which mark the institutions of class society would be a false step,
one which can only recreate a new form of class system in which a new
ruling elite govern and exploit the many. So while we agree with Marxists 
that the main function of the state is to defend class society, we also 
stress the structure of the state has evolved to execute that role. In 
the words of Rudolf Rocker:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"[S]ocial institutions . . . do not arise arbitrarily, but
are called into being by special needs to serve definite
purposes . . . The newly arisen possessing classes had
need of a political instrument of power to maintain their
economic and social privileges over the masses of their
own people . . . Thus arose the appropriate social conditions
for the evolution of the modern state, as the organ of
political power of privileged castes and classes for the
forcible subjugation and oppression of the non-possessing
classes . . . Its external forms have altered in the course
of its historical development, but its functions have always
been the same . . . And just as the functions of the bodily
organs of . . . animals cannot be arbitrarily altered, so
that, for example, one cannot at will hear  with his eyes 
and see with his ears, so also one cannot at pleasure
transform an organ of social oppression into an instrument
for the liberation of the oppressed. The state can only
be what it is: the defender of mass-exploitation and 
social privileges, and creator of privileged classes."</i> 
[<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, pp. 14-5]
</blockquote></p><p>
As such, a new form of society, one based on the participation 
of all in the affairs of society (and a classless society can be 
nothing else) means the end of the state. This is because it has
been designed to <b>exclude</b> the participation a classless 
society needs in order to exist. In anarchist eyes, it is an abuse 
of the language to call the self-managed organisations by which 
the former working class manage (and defend) a free society a 
state. 
</p><p>
However, as <b>Workers Power</b> indicate, it could be objected that the 
anarchist vision of a federation of communal and workplace assemblies 
and volunteer militias to defend it is simply a new form of state. In 
other words, that the anarchists advocate what most people (including 
most Marxists) would call a state as this federal system is based on 
social organisation, collective decision making and (ultimately) the armed  
people. This was the position of Marx and Engels, who asserted against
Bakunin that <i>"to call this machine a 'revolutionary Commune organised
from the bottom to top' makes little difference. The name changes nothing
of the substance"</i> for to be able to do anything at all the communal
councils <i>"must be vested with some power and supported by a public 
force."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 23, p. 469] 
</p><p>
Anarchists reject this argument. To quote Daniel Gurin, initially 
Bakunin used the term state <i>"as synonyms for 'social collective.' The 
anarchists soon saw, however, that it was rather dangerous for them to use 
the same word as the authoritarians while giving it a quite different 
meaning. They felt that a new concept called for a new word and that the 
use of the old term could be dangerously ambiguous; so they ceased to give 
the name 'State' to the social collective of the future."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>,
pp. 60-1] This is more than mere labels or semantics as it gets to the heart of 
the difference between libertarian and authoritarian conceptions of society and 
social change. Anarchists argue that the state is structured to ensure minority 
rule and, consequently, a "workers' state" would be a new form of minority rule 
over the workers. For this reason we argue that working class self-management 
from the bottom-up cannot be confused with a "state." The Russian Revolution 
showed the validity of this, with the Bolsheviks calling their dictatorship a 
"workers' state" in spite of the workers having no power in it.
</p><p>
Anarchists have long pointed out that government is not the same as collective 
decision making and to call the bottom-up communal system anarchists aim for a 
"state" when its role is to promote and ensure mass participation in social 
life is nonsense. That Marxists are vaguely aware of this obvious fact explains 
why they often talk of a "semi-state", a "new kind of state", a state "unique 
in history," or use some other expression to describe their post-revolutionary 
system. This would be a state (to use Engels words) which is <i>"no longer a 
state in the proper sense of the word."</i> [quoted by Lenin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 319] If that <b>is</b> the case, then why call it state? 
</p><p>
Somewhat ironically, Engels provided more than enough support for
the anarchist position. It is perfectly possible to have social organisation
and it <b>not</b> be a state. When discussing the Native American Iroquois 
Confederacy, Engels noted that <i>"organ of the Confederacy was a Federal 
Council"</i> which was <i>"elected . . . and could always be removed"</i> 
by popular assemblies. There was <i>"no chief executive"</i> but <i>"two 
supreme war chiefs"</i> and <i>"[w]hen war broke out it was carried on mainly 
by volunteers."</i> Yet this was <i>"the organisation of a society which as 
yet knows no <b>state</b>."</i> [<b>Selected Works</b>, p. 517, 
p. 518 and p. 516] In the anarchist commune there is a federal council 
elected and mandated by popular assemblies. These, in turn, are federated 
in a similar bottom-up manner. The means of production have been expropriated 
and held by society as a whole and so classes have been abolished. Volunteer 
militias have been organised for self-defence against counter-revolutionary
attempts to subject the free people to authority. Why is this <b>not</b> a 
society which <i>"knows no <b>state</b>"</i>? Is it because the anarchist
commune is fighting against the capitalist class? If so, does this mean that 
the Iroquois Confederacy became a state when it waged war against those
seeking to impose bourgeois rule on it? That is doubtful and so Marx's
assertion is simply wrong and reflects both the confusion at the heart of the
Marxist theory of the state and the illogical depths Marxists sink to when
attacking anarchism.
</p><p>
This not a matter of mere "labels" as Marxists assert, but rather gets to the 
key issue of who has the real power in a revolution - the people armed or a 
new minority (the "revolutionary" government). In other words, most Marxists 
cannot tell the difference between libertarian organisation (power to the base 
and decision making from the bottom-up) and the state (centralised power in a 
few hands and top-down decision making). Which helps explain why the Bolshevik 
revolution was such a failure. The confusion of working class power with party 
power is one of the root problems with Marxism. So why do most Marxists tend 
to call their post-revolutionary organisation a state? Simply because, at some 
level, they recognise that, in reality, the working class does not wield power 
in the so-called "workers' state": the party does. This was the case in Russia. 
The working class never wielded power under the Bolsheviks and here is the most 
obvious contradiction in the Marxist theory of the state - a contradiction 
which, as we discuss in <a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a> the 
Leninists solved by arguing that the party had to assert its power <b>over</b> 
the working class for its own good. 
</p><p>
Moreover, as we discuss in 
<a href="secH3.html#sech39">section H.3.9</a>, it is both simplistic
and wrong to argue that the state is simply the tool of economic classes.
The state is a source of social inequality in and of itself and, consequently, 
can oppress and exploit the working class just as much as, and independently of, 
any economically dominant class:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"<b>All political power inevitably creates a privileged situation</b>
for the men who exercise it. Thus it violates, from the beginning,
the equalitarian principle and strikes at the heart of the Social
Revolution . . . [It] inevitably becomes a source of other privileges,
even if it does not depend on the bourgeoisie. Having taken over
the Revolution, having mastered it, and bridled it, <b>power is 
compelled to create a bureaucratic apparatus</b>, indispensable to
all authority which wants to maintain itself, to command, to
order - in a word, 'to govern'. Rapidly, it attracts around itself
all sorts of elements eager to dominate and exploit.
</p><p>
"<b>Thus it forms a new privileged caste</b>, at first politically and
later economically . . . It sows everywhere the seed of inequality
and soon infects the whole social organism."</i> [Voline, <b>The 
Unknown Revolution</b>, p. 249]
</blockquote></p><p>
</p><p>
So if it <b>were</b> simply a question of consolidating a revolution
and its self-defence then there would be no argument:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"But perhaps the truth is simply this: . . . [some] take the 
expression 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean simply 
the revolutionary action of the workers in taking possession 
of the land and the instruments of labour, and trying to 
build a society and organise a way of life in which there 
will be no place for a class that exploits and oppresses the 
producers.
</p><p>
"Thus constructed, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would 
be the effective power of all workers trying to bring down 
capitalist society and would thus turn into Anarchy as soon 
as resistance from reactionaries would have ceased and no one 
can any longer seek to compel the masses by violence to obey 
and work for him. In which case, the discrepancy between us 
would be nothing more than a question of semantics. Dictatorship 
of the proletariat would signify the dictatorship of everyone,
which is to say, it would be a dictatorship no longer, just as 
government by everybody is no longer a government in the 
authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word.
</p><p>
"But the real supporters of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'
do not take that line, as they are making quite plain in 
Russia. Of course, the proletariat has a hand in this, just
as the people has a part to play in democratic regimes,
that is to say, to conceal the reality of things. In reality,
what we have is the dictatorship of one party, or rather,
of one party's leaders: a genuine dictatorship, with its
decrees, its penal sanctions, its henchmen and above all its
armed forces, which are at present [1919] also deployed in
the defence of the revolution against its external enemies,
but which will tomorrow be used to impose the dictator's
will upon the workers, to apply a break on revolution,
to consolidate the new interests in the process of emerging
and protect a new privileged class against the masses."</i> 
[Malatesta, <b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 2, pp. 38-9]
</blockquote></p><p>
The question is, therefore, one of <b>who</b> <i>"seizes power"</i> - 
will it be the mass of the population or will it be a party claiming 
to represent it. The difference is vital and it confuses the issue 
to use the same word "state" to describe two such fundamentally 
different structures as a "bottom-up" self-managed communal 
federation and a "top-down" hierarchical centralised organisation 
(such as has been every state that has existed). This explains why 
anarchists reject the idea of a <i>"democratic workers' state"</i> 
as the means by which a revolution defends itself. Rather than 
signify working class power or management of society, it signifies 
the opposite - the seizure of power of a minority (in this case, 
the leaders of the vanguard party).
</p><p>
Anarchists argue that the state is designed to exclude the
mass of the population from the decision making process. This, 
ironically for Trotskyism, was one of the reasons why leading
Bolsheviks (including Lenin and Trotsky) argued for a workers 
state. The centralisation of power implied by the state was
essential so that the vanguard party could ignore (to use <b>Worker's
Power</b>'s phrase) <i>"the will of the majority."</i> This particular 
perspective was clearly a lesson they learned from their experiences 
during the Russian Revolution -  as we discussed in 
<a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a> the notion that the
<i>"dictatorship of the proletariat"</i> was, in fact, the <i>"dictatorship
of the party"</i> was a commonplace ideological truism in Leninist 
circles. As anarchists had warned, it was a dictatorship <b>over</b> 
the proletariat and acknowledged as such by the likes of Lenin and
Trotsky. 
</p><p>
Needless to say, <b>Workers' Power</b> (like most Trotskyists) blame
the degeneration of the Russian revolution on the Civil War and its 
isolation. However, the creation of a party dictatorship was not seen 
in these terms and, moreover, as we discuss in detail in 
<a href="secH6.html">section H.6</a> the Bolshevik 
undermining of working class autonomy and democracy started well 
<b>before</b> the outbreak of civil war, thus confirming anarchist 
theory. These conclusions of leading Leninists simply justified the
actions undertaken by the Bolsheviks from the start.
</p><p>
This is why anarchists reject the idea of a <i>"democratic workers'
state."</i> Simply put, as far as it is a state, it cannot be
democratic and in as far as it is democratic, it cannot be a
state. The Leninist idea of a <i>"workers' state"</i> means, in fact,
the seizure of power by the party. This, we must stress, naturally
follows from the reality of the state. It is designed for minority
rule and excludes, by its very nature, mass participation and this 
aspect of the state was one which the leading lights of Bolshevism 
agreed with. Little wonder, then, that in practice the Bolshevik 
regime suppressed of any form of democracy which hindered the power 
of the party. Maurice Brinton summed up the issue well when he 
argued that <i>"'workers' power' cannot be identified or 
equated with the power of the Party - as it repeatedly was by 
the Bolsheviks . . . What 'taking power' really implies is that the 
vast majority of the working class at last realises its ability to 
manage both production and society - and organises to this end."</i> 
[<b>The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control</b>, p. xiv] 
</p><p>
In summary, therefore, anarchists reject the idea that the
defence of a revolution can be conducted by a state. As
Bakunin once put it, there is the <i>"Republic-State"</i> and
there is <i>"the system of the Republic-Commune, the
Republic-Federation, i.e. the system of <b>Anarchism.</b> This 
is the politics of the Social Revolution, which aims at 
the abolition of the <b>State</b> and establishment of the 
economic, entirely free organisation of the people - 
organisation from bottom to top by means of federation."</i> 
[<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 314] Indeed, 
creating a new state will simply destroy the most important
gain of any revolution - working class autonomy - and its
replacement by another form of minority rule (by the party).
Anarchists have always argued that the defence of a revolution
must not be confused with the state and so argue for the
abolition of the state <b>and</b> the defence of a revolution. 
Only when working class people actually run themselves society 
will a revolution be successful. For anarchists, this means 
that <i>"effective emancipation can be achieved only by the 
<b>direct, widespread, and independent action</b> . . . <b>of 
the workers themselves</b>, grouped . . . in their own 
class organisations . . . on the basis of concrete action 
and self-government, <b>helped but not governed</b>, by 
revolutionaries working in the very midst of, and not above 
the mass and the professional, technical, defence and other 
branches."</i> [Voline, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 197] 
</p><p>
This means that anarchists argue that the state cannot 
be transformed or adjusted, but has to be smashed by a 
social revolution and replaced with organisations and 
structures created by working class people during their 
own struggles (see <a href="secH1.html#sech14">section H.1.4</a> 
for details). Anarchist opposition to the so-called workers'
state has absolutely <b>nothing</b> to do with the issue of
defending a revolution, regardless of what Marxists assert.
</p>

<a name="sech22"><h2>H.2.2 Do anarchists reject <i>"class conflict"</i> 
and <i>"collective struggle"</i>?</h2></a> 

<p>
Of course not. Anarchists have always taken a keen interest in
the class struggle, in the organisation, solidarity and actions
of working class people. Anarchist Nicholas Walter summarised the 
obvious and is worth quoting at length:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Virtually all forms of revolutionary socialism during the nineteenth
century, whether authoritarian or libertarian, were based on the 
concept of class struggle . . . The term anarchist was first adopted
by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840, and although he disliked the class
struggle, he recognised it existed, and took sides in it when he had
to . . . during the French Revolution of 1848, he insisted that he was 
on the side of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie . . . his last
book was a positive study of the need for specially proletarian 
politics . . . 
</p><p>
"The actual anarchist movement was founded later, by the anti-authoritarian
sections of the First International . . . They accepted [its] founding Address
. . ., drafted by Karl Marx, which assumed the primacy of the class struggle 
and insisted that 'the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered 
by the working classes themselves'; they accepted the Programme of the 
International Alliance of Social Democracy (1869), drafted by Michael Bakunin,
which assumed the primacy of the class struggle . . . and they accepted the
declaration of the St. Imier Congress which assumed the primacy of the
class struggle and insisted that 'rejecting all compromise to arrive at 
the accomplishment of the social revolution, the proletarians of all 
countries must establish, outside all bourgeois politics, the solidarity 
of revolutionary action' . . . This was certainly the first anarchist 
movement, and this movement was certainly based on a libertarian version
of the concept of the class struggle.
</p><p>
"Most of the leaders of this movement - first Michael Bakunin, James
Guillaume, Errico Malatesta, Carlo Caliero, later Peter Kropotkin, Louise
Michel, Emile Pouget, Jean Grave, and so on - took for granted that 
there was a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and 
that the social revolution would be conducted by the former against the
latter. They derived such ideas . . . from the traditional theory of
revolutionary socialism and the traditional practice of working-class
action . . .
</p><p>
"The great revolutions of the early twentieth century - in Mexico, Russia,
Spain - all derived from the class struggle and all involved anarchist
intervention on the side of the working class. The great martyrs of the
anarchist movement - from Haymarket in 1887 through Francisco Ferrer in 
1909 to Sacco and Vanzetti in 1927 - were killed in the class struggle.
The great partisans of anarchist warfare -  from Emiliano Zapata through
Nestor Makhno to Buenaventura Durruti - were all fighting in the class
struggle.
</p><p>
"So . . . class struggle in anarchism . . . [and] its importance in the
anarchist movement is incontrovertible."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Past and 
other essays</b>, pp. 60-2]
</blockquote></p><p>
Anyone even remotely aware of anarchism and its history could not fail to 
notice that class struggle plays a key role in anarchist theory, particularly 
(but not exclusively) in its revolutionary form. To assert otherwise is simply 
to lie about anarchism. Sadly, Marxists have been known to make such an assertion.
</p><p>
For example, Pat Stack of the British SWP argued that anarchists
<i>"dismiss . . .  the importance of the collective nature of
change"</i> and so <i>"downplays the centrality of the working class"</i> 
in the revolutionary process. This, he argues, means that for
anarchism the working class <i>"is not the key to change."</i> He 
stresses that for Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin <i>"revolutions 
were not about . . . collective struggle or advance"</i> and
that anarchism <i>"despises the collectivity."</i> Amazingly he 
argues that for Kropotkin, <i>"far from seeing class conflict 
as the dynamic for social change as Marx did, saw co-operation 
being at the root of the social process."</i> Therefore, <i>"[i]t 
follows that if class conflict is not the motor of change, the working 
class is not the agent and collective struggle not the means. 
Therefore everything from riot to bomb, and all that might 
become between the two, was legitimate when ranged against 
the state, each with equal merit."</i> [<i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i>,
<b>Socialist Review</b>, no. 246] Needless to say, he makes the
usual exception for anarcho-syndicalists, thereby showing
his total ignorance of anarchism <b>and</b> syndicalism (see 
<a href="secH2.html#sech28">section H.2.8</a>).
</p><p>
Assertions like these are simply incredible. It is hard to believe
that anyone who is a leading member of a Leninist party could write
such nonsense which suggests that Stack is aware of the truth and
simply decides to ignore it. All in all, it is <b>very</b> easy to refute 
these assertions. All we have to do is, unlike Stack, to quote from 
the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin and other anarchists. Even the
briefest familiarity with the writings of revolutionary anarchism
would soon convince the reader that Stack really does not know 
what he is talking about.
</p><p>
Take, for example, Bakunin. Rather than reject class conflict, collective 
struggle or the key role of the working class, Bakunin based his political 
ideas on all three. As he put it, there was, <i>"between the proletariat and 
the bourgeoisie, an irreconcilable antagonism which results inevitably from 
their respective stations in life."</i> He stressed that <i>"war between the 
proletariat and the bourgeoisie is unavoidable"</i> and would only end with 
the <i>"abolition of the bourgeoisie as a distinct class."</i> In order for 
the worker to <i>"become strong"</i> he <i>"must unite"</i> with other 
workers in <i>"the union of all local and national workers' associations 
into a world-wide association, <b>the great International Working-Men's
Association.</b>"</i> It was only <i>"through practice and collective
experience"</i> and <i>"the progressive expansion and development
of the economic struggle [that] will bring [the worker] more
to recognise his [or her] true enemies: the privileged classes,
including the clergy, the bourgeoisie, and the nobility; and the
State, which exists only to safeguard all the privileges of those
classes."</i> There was <i>"but a single path, that of <b>emancipation
through practical action</b>"</i> which <i>"has only one meaning.
It means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the
bosses. It means <b>trades-unions, organisation, and the
federation of resistance funds.</b>"</i> Then, <i>"when the revolution 
- brought about by the force of circumstances - breaks out, 
the International will be a real force and know what it has to 
do"</i>, namely to <i>"take the revolution into its own hands"</i> and
become <i>"an earnest international organisation of workers'
associations from all countries"</i> which will be <i>"capable of
replacing this departing political world of States and bourgeoisie."</i> 
[<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, pp. 97-8, p. 103 and p. 110]
</p><p>
Hardly the words of a man who rejected class conflict, the working class 
and the collective nature of change! Nor is this an isolated argument from 
Bakunin, it recurs continuously throughout Bakunin's works. For Bakunin, 
the <i>"initiative in the new movement will belong to the people . . . in 
Western Europe, to the city and factory workers - in Russia, Poland, and 
most of the Slavic countries, to the peasants."</i> However, <i>"in order 
that the peasants rise up, it is absolutely necessary that the initiative 
in this revolutionary movement be taken up by the city workers . . . who 
combine in themselves the instincts, ideas, and conscious will of the Social 
Revolution."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 375] 
Similarly, he argued that <i>"equality"</i> was the <i>"aim"</i> of 
the International Workers' Association and <i>"the organisation of the 
working class its strength, the unification of the proletariat the world 
over . . . its weapon, its only policy."</i> He stressed that <i>"to create 
a people's force capable of crushing the military and civil force of the 
State, it is necessary to organise the proletariat."</i> [quoted by K.J. 
Kenafick, <b>Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx</b>, p. 95 and p. 254] 
</p><p>
Strikes played a very important role in Bakunin's ideas (as 
they do in all revolutionary anarchist thought). He saw the 
strike as <i>"the beginnings of the social war of the proletariat 
against the bourgeoisie . . . Strikes are a valuable instrument 
from two points of view. Firstly, they electrify the masses 
. . . awaken in them the feeling of the deep antagonism which 
exists between their interests and those of the bourgeoisie
. . . secondly they help immensely to provoke and establish 
between the workers of all trades, localities and countries 
the consciousness and very fact of solidarity: a twofold 
action, both negative and positive, which tends to constitute 
directly the new world of the proletariat, opposing it almost 
in an absolute way to the bourgeois world."</i> [quoted by Caroline 
Cahm, <b>Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism
1872-1886</b>, pp. 216-217] For Bakunin, strikes train workers 
for social revolution as they <i>"create, organise, and form a 
workers' army, an army which is bound to break down the power of 
the bourgeoisie and the State, and lay the ground for a new world."</i> 
[<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, pp. 384-5] 
</p><p>
The revolution would be <i>"an insurrection of all the people and the 
voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward."</i> [<b>Statism 
and Anarchy</b>, p. 179] As we argue in <a href="secI2.html#seci23">section I.2.3</a>, 
the very process of collective class struggle would, for Bakunin and other
anarchists, create the basis of a free society. Thus, in Bakunin's eyes, 
the <i>"future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom 
upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in 
their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a 
great federation, international and universal."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: 
Selected Writings</b>, p. 206] 
</p><p>
In other words, the basic structure created by the revolution would be based 
on the working classes own combat organisations, as created in their struggles 
against oppression and exploitation. The link between present and future would 
be labour unions (workers' associations), which played the key role of both the 
means to abolish capitalism and the state and as the framework of a socialist 
society. For Bakunin, the <i>"very essence of socialism"</i> lies in <i>"the 
irrepressible conflict between the workers and the exploiters of labour."</i> A 
<i>"living, powerful, socialist movement"</i> can <i>"be made a reality only by 
the awakened revolutionary consciousness, the collective will, and the organisation 
of the working masses themselves."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 191 
and p. 212] Therefore, it was essential to <i>"[o]rganise always more and more 
the practical militant international solidarity of the toilers of all trades 
and of all countries, and remember . . . you will find an immense, an irresistible 
force in this universal collectivity."</i> Hence Bakunin's support for 
self-discipline within self-managed organisations, which came directly from 
the his awareness of the <b>collective</b> nature of social change: <i>"Today, 
in revolutionary action as in labour itself, collectivism must replace 
individualism. Understand clearly that in organising yourselves you will be 
stronger than all the political leaders in the world."</i> [quoted by Kenafick, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 291 and p. 244]
</p><p>
All of which is quite impressive for someone who was a founding father of a theory 
which, according to Stack, downplayed the <i>"centrality of the working class,"</i> 
argued that the working class was <i>"not the key to change,"</i> dismissed <i>"the 
importance of the collective nature of change"</i> as well as <i>"collective struggle 
or advance"</i> and <i>"despises the collectivity"</i>! Clearly, to argue that 
Bakunin held any of these views simply shows that the person making such statements 
does not have a clue what they are talking about. 
</p><p>
The same, needless to say, applies to all revolutionary anarchists.
Kropotkin built upon Bakunin's arguments and, like him, based his 
politics on collective working class struggle and organisation. He 
consistently stressed that <i>"the Anarchists have always advised 
taking an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on 
the <b>direct</b> struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector
- the State."</i> Such struggle, <i>"better than any other indirect means, 
permits the worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the present 
conditions of work, while it opens his eyes to the evil done by Capitalism 
and the State that supports it, and wakes up his thoughts concerning the 
possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange without 
the intervention of the capitalist and the State."</i> [<b>Evolution and 
Environment</b>, pp. 82-3] In his article on <i>"Anarchism"</i> for the 
<b>Encyclopaedia Britannica</b>, Kropotkin stressed that anarchists <i>"have 
endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organisations 
and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without
placing their faith in parliamentary legislation."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, 
p. 287]
</p><p>
Far from denying the importance of collective class struggle, he 
actually stressed it again and again. As he once wrote, <i>"to make 
the revolution, the mass of workers will have to organise themselves. 
Resistance and the strike are excellent means of organisation for doing 
this."</i> He argued that it was <i>"a question of organising societies 
of resistance for all trades in each town, of creating resistance funds 
against the exploiters, of giving more solidarity to the workers' 
organisations of each town and of putting them in contact with those of 
other towns, of federating them . . . Workers' solidarity must no longer
be an empty word by practised each day between all trades and all nations."</i> 
[quoted by Cahm, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 255-6]
</p><p>
As can be seen, Kropotkin was well aware of the importance of popular,
mass, struggles. As he put it, anarchists <i>"know very well that 
any popular movement is a step towards the social revolution. It 
awakens the spirit of revolt, it makes men [and women] accustomed 
to seeing the established order (or rather the established 
disorder) as eminently unstable."</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 203]
As regards the social revolution, he argues that <i>"a decisive
blow will have to be administered to private property: from
the beginning, the workers will have to proceed to take over
all social wealth so as to put it into common ownership. This
revolution can only be carried out by the workers themselves."</i>
In order to do this, the masses have to build their own
organisation as the <i>"great mass of workers will not only 
have to constitute itself outside the bourgeoisie . . . it will have
to take action of its own during the period which will precede
the revolution . . . and this sort of action can only be
carried out when a strong <b>workers' organisation</b> exists."</i>
This meant, of course, it was <i>"the mass of workers we have to
seek to organise. We . . . have to submerge ourselves in the
organisation of the people . . . When the mass of workers is
organised and we are with it to strengthen its revolutionary
idea, to make the spirit of revolt against capital germinate
there . . . then it will be the social revolution."</i> [quoted
by Caroline Cahm, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 153-4]
</p><p>
He saw the class struggle in terms of <i>"a multitude of acts
of revolt in all countries, under all possible conditions:
first, individual revolt against capital and State; then
collective revolt - strikes and working-class insurrections
- both preparing, in men's minds as in actions, a revolt
of the masses, a revolution."</i> Clearly, the mass, collective
nature of social change was not lost on Kropotkin who pointed
to a <i>"multitude of risings of working masses and peasants"</i> 
as a positive sign. Strikes, he argued, <i>"were once 'a war
of folded arms'"</i> but now were <i>"easily turning to revolt, and
sometimes taking the proportions of vast insurrections."</i>
[<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 144] 
</p><p>
Kropotkin could not have been clearer. Somewhat ironically, given 
Stack's assertions, Kropotkin explicitly opposed the Marxism of
his time (Social Democracy) precisely <b>because</b> it had 
<i>"moved away from a pure labour movement, in the sense of
a direct struggle against capitalists by means of strikes,
unions, and so forth."</i> The Marxists, he stated, opposed
strikes and unions because they <i>"diverted forces from electoral
agitation"</i> while anarchists <i>"reject[ed] a narrowly 
political struggle [and] inevitably became a more revolutionary
party, both in theory and in practice."</i> [<b>The Conquest 
of Bread and Other Writings</b>, pp. 207-8, p. 208 and p. 209]
</p><p>
And Pat Stack argues that Kropotkin did not see <i>"class conflict 
as the dynamic for social change,"</i> nor <i>"class conflict"</i> 
as <i>"the motor of change"</i> and the working class <i>"not the 
agent and collective struggle not the means"</i>! Truly incredible 
and a total and utter distortion of Kropotkin's ideas on the subject.
</p><p>
As for other anarchists, we discover the same concern over
class conflict, collective struggle and organisation and the
awareness of a mass social revolution by the working class.
Emma Goldman, for example, argued that anarchism <i>"stands for
direct action"</i> and that <i>"[t]rade unionism, the economic
area of the modern gladiator, owes its existence to direct
action . . . In France, in Spain, in Italy, in Russian, nay
even in England (witness the growing rebellion of English
labour unions), direct, revolutionary economic action has
become so strong a force in the battle for industrial
liberty as to make the world realise the tremendous 
importance of labour's power. The General Strike [is]
the supreme expression of the economic consciousness of
the workers . . . Today every great strike, in order to
win, must realise the importance of the solidaric general
protest."</i> [<b>Anarchism and Other Essays</b>, pp. 65-6] 
She placed collective class struggle at the centre of her
ideas and, crucially, she saw it as the way to create an
anarchist society:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"It is this war of classes that we must concentrate upon,
and in that connection the war against false values, against
evil institutions, against all social atrocities. Those who
appreciate the urgent need of co-operating in great struggles
. . . must organise the preparedness of the masses for the
overthrow of both capitalism and the state. Industrial and
economic preparedness is what the workers need. That alone
leads to revolution at the bottom . . . That alone will give
the people the means to take their children out of the slums,
out of the sweat shops and the cotton mills . . . That alone
leads to economic and social freedom, and does away with all
wars, all crimes, and all injustice."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, 
pp. 355-6]
</blockquote>
</p><p>For
Malatesta, <i>"the most powerful force for social transformation
is the working class movement . . . Through the organisations
established for the defence of their interests, workers
acquire an awareness of the oppression under which they
live and of the antagonisms which divide them from their
employers, and so begin to aspire to a better life, get
used to collective struggle and to solidarity."</i> This meant
that anarchists <i>"must recognise the usefulness and importance
of the workers' movement, must favour its development, and
make it one of the levers of their action, doing all they
can so that it . . . will culminate in a social revolution."</i>
Anarchists must <i>"deepen the chasm between capitalists and
wage-slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation
of private property and the destruction of State."</i> The new
society would be organised <i>"by means of free association
and federations of producers and consumers."</i> [<b>Errico
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 113, pp. 250-1 and p. 184] 
Alexander Berkman, unsurprisingly, argued the same thing. As he 
put it, only <i>"the workers"</i> as <i>"the worst victims of 
present institutions,"</i> could abolish capitalism an the state
as <i>"it is to their own interest to abolish them . . . labour's 
emancipation means at the same time the redemption of the whole 
of society."</i> He stressed that <i>"<b>only the right organisation 
of the workers</b> can accomplish what we are striving for . . . 
Organisation from the bottom up, beginning with the shop and factory, 
on the foundation of the joint interests of the workers everywhere
. . . alone can solve the labour question and serve the true 
emancipation of man[kind]."</i> [<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 187 
and p. 207]
</p><p>
As can be seen, the claim that Kropotkin or Bakunin, or 
anarchists in general, ignored the class struggle and 
collective working class struggle and organisation is 
either a lie or indicates ignorance. Clearly, anarchists
have placed working class struggle, organisation and
collective direct action and solidarity at the core of
their politics (and as the means of creating a libertarian
socialist society) from the start. Moreover, this perspective
is reflected in the anarchist flag itself as we discuss
in our <a href="append2.html">appendix on the symbols of anarchism</a>. 
According to Louise Michel the <i>"black flag is the flag of strikes."</i> 
[<b>The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel</b>, p. 168] If anarchism
does, as some Marxists assert, reject class conflict and collective 
struggle then using a flag associated with an action which expresses 
both seems somewhat paradoxical. However, for those with even a basic 
understanding of anarchism and its history there is no paradox as anarchism 
is obviously based on class conflict and collective struggle.
</p><p>
Also see <a href="secH2.html#sech28">section H.2.8</a> for a 
discussion of the relationship of anarchism to syndicalism.</p>

<a name="sech23"><h2>H.2.3 Does anarchism yearn <i>"for what has gone before"</i>?</h2></a>

<p>
Leninist Pat Stack states that one of the <i>"key points of divergence"</i>
between anarchism and Marxism is that the former, <i>"far from understanding 
the advances that capitalism represented, tended to take a wistful look back. 
Anarchism shares with Marxism an abhorrence of the horrors of capitalism, but 
yearns for what has gone before."</i> [<i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i>, 
<b>Socialist Review</b>, no. 246]
</p><p>
Like his other <i>"key point"</i> (namely the rejection of class struggle - 
see <a href="secH2.html#sech22">last section</a>), Stack is simply wrong. Even 
the quickest look at the works of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin would convince 
the reader that this is simply distortion. Rather than look backwards for our 
ideas of social life, anarchists have always been careful to base our ideas on the 
current state of society and what anarchist thinkers considered positive current 
trends within it. 
</p><p>
The dual element of progress is important to remember. Capitalism 
is a class society, marked by exploitation, oppression and various 
social hierarchies. In such a society progress can hardly be neutral. 
It will reflect vested interests, the needs of those in power, the 
rationales of the economic system (e.g. the drive for profits) and 
those who benefit from it, the differences in power between states 
and companies and so on. Equally, it will be shaped by the class 
struggle, the resistance of the working classes to exploitation 
and oppression, the objective needs of production, etc. As such, 
trends in society will reflect the various class conflicts, social 
hierarchies, power relationships and so on which exist within it.
</p><p>
This is particularly true of the economy. The development of the 
industrial structure of a capitalist economy will be based on the 
fundamental need to maximise the profits and power of the capitalists. 
As such, it will develop (either by market forces or by state intervention) 
in order to ensure this. This means that various tendencies apparent in 
capitalist society exist specifically to aid the development of capital.
It does not follow that because a society which places profits above 
people has found a specific way of organising production "efficient" it 
means that a socialist society will do. As such, anarchist opposition to 
specific tendencies within capitalism (such as the increased concentration 
and centralisation of companies) does not mean a <i>"yearning"</i> for the 
past. Rather, it shows an awareness that capitalist methods are precisely that
and that they need not be suited for a society which replaces the profit 
system with human and ecological need as the criteria for decision making.
</p><p>
For anarchists, this means questioning the assumptions of capitalist progress
and so the first task of a revolution after the expropriation of the capitalists 
and the destruction of the state will be to transform the industrial structure 
and how it operates, not keep it as it is. Anarchists have long argued that 
capitalist methods cannot be used for socialist ends. In our battle to democratise 
and socialise the workplace, in our awareness of the importance of collective 
initiatives by the direct producers in transforming their work situation, we 
show that factories are not merely sites of production, but also of reproduction 
- the reproduction of a certain structure of social relations based on the division 
between those who give orders and those who take them. Moreover, the structure of
industry has developed to maximise profits. Why assume that this structure will 
be equally as efficient in producing useful products by meaningful work which does 
not harm the environment, society or those who do the actual tasks? A further aspect 
of this is that many of the struggles today, from the Zapatistas in Chiapas to those 
against Genetically Modified (GM) food and nuclear power are precisely based on the 
understanding that capitalist "progress" can not be uncritically accepted. To resist 
the expulsion of people from the land in the name of progress or the introduction 
of terminator seeds is not to look back to <i>"what had gone"</i>, although this 
is also precisely what the proponents of capitalist globalisation often accuse us of. 
Rather, it is to put <b><i>"people before profit."</i></b> 
</p><p>
That so many Marxists fail to understand this suggests that their ideology subscribes 
to notions of "progress" which simply builds upon capitalist ones. As such, only a 
sophist would confuse a critical evaluation of trends within capitalism with a 
yearning for the past. It means to buy into the whole capitalist notion of 
"progress" which has always been part of justifying the inhumanities of the status
quo. Simply put, just because a process is rewarded by the profit driven market it 
does not mean that it makes sense from a human or ecological perspective. For example, 
as we argue in <a href="secJ5.html#secj511">section J.5.11</a>, the capitalist market 
hinders the spread of co-operatives and workers' self-management in spite of their 
well documented higher efficiency and productivity. From the perspective of the 
needs of the capitalists, this makes perfect sense. In terms of the workers and 
efficient allocation and use of resources, it does not. Would Marxists argue that 
because co-operatives and workers' self-management of production are marginal 
aspects of the capitalist economy it means that they will play no part in a sane 
society or that if a socialist expresses interest in them it means that are 
<i>"yearning"</i> for a past mode of production? We hope not. 
</p><p>
This common Marxist failure to understand anarchist investigations of the future 
is, ironically enough, joined with a total failure to understand the social 
conditions in which anarchists have put forward their ideas. For all his 
claims that anarchists ignore <i>"material conditions,"</i> it is Pat Stack 
(and others like him) who does so in his claims against Proudhon. Stack calls 
the Frenchman <i>"the founder of modern anarchism"</i> and states that Marx 
dubbed Proudhon <i>"the socialist of the small peasant or master craftsman."</i>
Typically, Stack gets even this wrong as it was Engels who used those words,
although Marx would probably have not disagreed if he had been alive when they 
were penned. [<b>The Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 626] From this, Stack implies 
that Proudhon was <i>"yearning for the past"</i> when he advanced his mutualist 
ideas. 
</p><p>
Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. This is because the society 
in which the French anarchist lived was predominately artisan and peasant in 
nature. This was admitted by Marx and Engels in the <b>Communist Manifesto</b> 
(<i>"[i]n countries like France"</i> the peasants <i>"constitute far more than 
half of the population."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 493]). As such, for Proudhon 
to incorporate the aspirations of the majority of the population is not to 
<i>"yearn for what has gone before"</i> but rather an extremely sensible 
position to take. This suggests that for Engels to state that the French 
anarchist was <i>"the socialist of the small peasant or master craftsman"</i> 
was unsurprising, a simple statement of fact, as the French working classes were, 
at the time, predominately small peasants or master craftsmen (or artisans). It,
in other words, reflected the society Proudhon lived in and, as such, did not
reflect desires for the past but rather a wish to end exploitation and oppression
<b>now</b> rather than some unspecified time in the future.
</p><p>
Moreover, Proudhon's ideas cannot be limited to just that as Marxists try to do. 
As K. Steven Vincent points out Proudhon's <i>"social theories may not be reduced 
to a socialism for only the peasant class, nor was it a socialism only for 
the petite bourgeois; it was a socialism of and for French workers. And 
in the mid-nineteenth century . . . most French workers were still artisans."</i> 
Indeed, <i>"[w]hile Marx was correct in predicting the eventual predominance of 
the industrial proletariat vis--vis skilled workers, such predominance was 
neither obvious nor a foregone conclusion in France during the nineteenth 
century. The absolute number of small industries even increased during most 
of the century."</i> [<b>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French 
Republican Socialism</b>, p. 5 and p. 282] Proudhon himself noted in 1851 
that of a population of 36 million, 24 million were peasants and 6 million 
were artisans. Of the remaining 6 million, these included wage-workers for 
whom <i>"workmen's associations"</i> would be essential as <i>"a protest 
against the wage system,"</i> the <i>"denial of the rule of capitalists"</i> 
and for <i>"the management of large instruments of labour."</i> [<b>The 
General Idea of the Revolution</b>, pp. 97-8]
</p><p>
To summarise, if the society in which you live is predominately made-up of 
peasants and artisans then it is hardly an insult to be called <i>"the 
socialist of the small peasant or master craftsman."</i> Equally, it can 
hardly represent a desire for <i>"what has gone before"</i> to tailor your 
ideas to the actual conditions in the country in which you live! And Stack 
accuses <b>anarchists</b> of ignoring <i>"material conditions"</i>! 
</p><p>
Neither can it be said that Proudhon ignored the development of 
industrialisation in France during his lifetime. Quite the reverse, in 
fact, as indicated above. Proudhon did <b>not</b> ignore the rise of 
large-scale industry and argued that such industry should be managed by 
the workers' themselves via workers associations. As he put it, <i>"certain 
industries"</i> required <i>"the combined employment of a large number of
workers"</i> and so the producer is <i>"a collectivity."</i> In such industries 
<i>"we have no choice"</i> and so <i>"it is necessary to form an <b>association</b> 
among the workers"</i> because <i>"without that they would remain related as 
subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of 
masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 215-6] Even Engels had to grudgingly admit that Proudhon 
supported <i>"the association of workers"</i> for <i>"large-industry and large
establishments, such as railways."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 626]
</p><p>
All in all, Stack is simply showing his ignorance of both Proudhon's 
ideas <b>and</b> the society (the <i>"material conditions"</i>) 
in which they were shaped and were aimed for. As can be seen,
Proudhon incorporated the development of large-scale industry
within his mutualist ideas and so the need to abolish wage
labour by workers' associations and workers' control of
production. Perhaps Stack can fault Proudhon for seeking the 
end of capitalism too soon and for not waiting patiently will 
it developed further (if he does, he will also have to attack 
Marx, Lenin and Trotsky as well for the same failing!), but 
this has little to do with <i>"yearn[ing] for what has gone 
before."</i>
</p><p>
After distorting Proudhon's ideas on industry, Stack does the same
with Bakunin. He asserts the following:
</p><p><i><blockquote>
"Similarly, the Russian anarchist leader Bakunin argued that it 
was the progress of capitalism that represented the fundamental 
problem. For him industrialisation was an evil. He believed it 
had created a decadent western Europe, and therefore had held 
up the more primitive, less industrialised Slav regions as the 
hope for change."</i>
</blockquote></p><p>
Now, it would be extremely interesting to find out where, exactly,
Stack discovered that Bakunin made these claims. After all, they
are at such odds with Bakunin's anarchist ideas that it is temping 
to conclude that Stack is simply making it up. This, we suggest, 
explains the total lack of references for such an outrageous claim. 
Looking at what appears to be his main source, we discover Paul Avrich 
writing that <i>"[i]n 1848"</i> (i.e. nearly 20 years <b>before</b> Bakunin 
became an anarchist!) Bakunin <i>"spoke of the decadence of Western 
Europe and saw hope in the primitive, less industrialised Slavs 
for the regeneration of the Continent."</i> [<b>Anarchist Portraits</b>, 
p. 8] The plagiarism is obvious, as are the distortions. Given
that Bakunin became an anarchist in the mid-1860s, how his
pre-anarchist ideas are relevant to an evaluation of anarchism
escapes logic. It makes as much sense as quoting Marx to refute
fascism as Mussolini was originally the leader of the left-wing
of the Italian Socialist Party! 
</p><p>
It is, of course, simple to refute Stack's claims. We need only do that 
which he does not, namely quote Bakunin. For someone who thought 
<i>"industrialisation was an evil,"</i> a key
aspect of Bakunin's ideas on social revolution was the seizing
of industry and its placing under social ownership. As he put
it, <i>"capital and all tools of labour belong to the city 
workers - to the workers associations. The whole organisation
of the future should be nothing but a free federation of workers
- agricultural workers as well as factory workers and 
associations of craftsmen."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of
Bakunin</b>, p. 410] Bakunin argued that <i>"to destroy . . . all the 
instruments of labour . . . would be to condemn all humanity - 
which is infinity too numerous today to exist . . . on the simple 
gifts of  nature . . . - to . . . death by starvation. Thus
capital cannot and must not be destroyed. It must be preserved."</i> 
Only when workers <i>"obtain not individual but <b>collective</b> 
property in capital"</i> and when capital is no longer 
<i>"concentrated in the hands of a separate, exploiting class"</i> 
will they be able <i>"to smash the tyranny of capital."</i> [<b>The 
Basic Bakunin</b>, pp. 90-1] He stressed that only <i>"associated
labour, this is labour organised upon the principles of
reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the task of
maintaining the existence of a large and somewhat civilised
society."</i> Moreover, the <i>"whole secret of the boundless 
productivity of human labour consists first of all in
applying . . . scientifically developed reason . . . and
then in the division of that labour."</i> [<b>The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, pp. 341-2] Hardly the thoughts of
someone opposed to industrialisation! Unsurprisingly, then, Eugene 
Pyziu noted that <i>"[i]n an article printed in 1868 [Bakunin] rejected 
outright the doctrine of the rottenness of the West and of the messianic 
destiny of Russia."</i> [<b>The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. 
Bakunin</b>, p. 61]
</p><p>
Rather than oppose industrialisation and urge the destruction
of industry, Bakunin considered one of the first acts of the 
revolution would be workers' associations taking over the means 
of production and turning them into collective property managed 
by the workers themselves. Hence Daniel Gurin's comment: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to say they 
declared themselves without equivocation in favour of the common 
exploitation, not by the State but by associated workers of the 
large-scale means of production and of the public services. 
Proudhon has been quite wrongly presented as an exclusive 
enthusiast of private property."</i> [<i>"From Proudhon to Bakunin"</i>, 
pp. 23-33, <b>The Radical Papers</b>, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), 
p. 32]
</blockquote></p><p>
Clearly, Stack does not have the faintest idea of what he is
talking about! Nor is Kropotkin any safer than Proudhon or 
Bakunin from Stack's distortions:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Peter Kropotkin, another famous anarchist leader to emerge in 
Russia, also looked backwards for change. He believed the ideal 
society would be based on small autonomous communities, devoted 
to small scale production. He had witnessed such communities 
among Siberian peasants and watchmakers in the Swiss mountains."</i>
</blockquote></p><p>
First, we must note the plagiarism. Stack is summarising Paul Avrich's 
summary of Kropotkin's ideas. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 62] Rather than go 
to the source material, Stack provides an interpretation of someone 
else's interpretation of someone else's ideas! Clearly, the number of links 
in the chain means that something is going to get lost in the process and, 
of course, it does. The something which "gets lost" is, unfortunately, 
Kropotkin's ideas.
</p><p> 
Ultimately, Stack is simply showing his total ignorance of Kropotkin's 
ideas by making such a statement. At least Avrich expanded upon his
summary to mention that Kropotkin's positive evaluation of using
modern technology and the need to apply it on an appropriate level 
to make work and the working environment as pleasant as possible. 
As Avrich summarises, <i>"[p]laced in small voluntary workshops, 
machinery would rescue human beings from the monotony and toil
of large-scale capitalist enterprise, allow time for leisure
and cultural pursuits, and remove forever the stamp of inferiority
traditionally borne by manual labour."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 63] Hardly
<i>"backward looking"</i> to desire the application of science and
technology to transform the industrial system into one based on
the needs of people rather than profit!
</p><p>
Stack must be hoping that the reader has, like himself, not read 
Kropotkin's classic work <b>Fields, Factories and Workshops</b> for if 
they have then they would be aware of the distortion Stack subjects 
Kropotkin's ideas to. While Avrich does present, in general, a
reasonable summary of Kropotkin's ideas, he does place it into 
a framework of his own making. Kropotkin while stressing the
importance of decentralising industry within a free society
did not look backward for his inspiration. Rather, he looked
to trends within existing society, trends he thought pointed
in an anti-capitalist direction. This can be seen from the fact
he based his ideas on detailed analysis of current developments 
in the economy and came to the conclusion that industry would 
spread across the global (which has happened) and that small 
industries will continue to exist side by side with large ones 
(which also has been confirmed). From these facts he argued that 
a socialist society would aim to decentralise production, 
combining agriculture with industry and both using modern 
technology to the fullest. This was possible only after a 
social revolution which expropriated industry and the land and 
placed social wealth into the hands of the producers. Until then, 
the positive trends he saw in modern society would remain 
circumcised by the workings of the capitalist market and the 
state. 
</p><p>
As we discuss the fallacy that Kropotkin (or anarchists in general) 
have argued for <i>"small autonomous communities, devoted to small 
scale production"</i> in <a href="secI3.html#seci38">section I.3.8</a>, 
we will not do so here. Suffice to say, he did not, as is often asserted, 
argue for <i>"small-scale production"</i> (he still saw the need for 
factories, for example) but rather for production geared to 
<i><b>appropriate</b></i> levels, based on the objective needs of 
production (without the distorting effects generated by the needs 
of capitalist profits and power) and, of necessity, the needs of those
who work in and live alongside industry (and today we would add, the 
needs of the environment). In other words, the transformation of 
capitalism into a society human beings could live full and meaningful 
lives in. Part of this would involve creating an industry based on 
human needs. <i>"Have the factory and the workshop at the gates of 
your fields and gardens and work in them,"</i> he argued. <i>"Not 
those large establishments, of course, in which huge masses of 
metals have to be dealt with and which are better placed at certain 
spots indicated by Nature, but the countless variety of workshops 
and factories which are required to satisfy the infinite diversity 
of tastes among civilised men [and women]."</i> The new factories 
and workplaces would be <i>"airy and hygienic, and consequently 
economical, . . . in which human life is of more account than 
machinery and the making of extra profits."</i> [<b>Fields, 
Factories and Workshops Tomorrow</b>, p. 197] Under capitalism, he 
argued, the whole discourse of economics (like industrial development 
itself) was based on the logic and rationale of the profit motive:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Under the name of profits, rent and interest upon capital,
surplus value, and the like, economists have eagerly
discussed the benefits which the owners of land or capital,
or some privileged nations, can derive, either from the
under-paid work of the wage-labourer, or from the
inferior position of one class of the community towards
another class, or from the inferior economical development
of one nation towards another nation. . . 
</p><p>
"In the meantime the great question - 'What have we to
produce, and how?' necessarily remained in the background
. . . The main subject of social economy - that is, the
<b>economy of energy required for the satisfaction of human
needs</b> - is consequently the last subject which one
expects to find treated in a concrete form in economical
treatises."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 17]
</blockquote></p><p>
Kropotkin's ideas were, therefore, an attempt to discuss
how a post-capitalist society could develop, based on an
extensive investigation of current trends within capitalism,
and reflecting the needs which capitalism ignores. To fetishise
big industry, as Leninists tend to do, means locking socialism
itself into the logic of capitalism and, by implication, sees 
a socialist society which will basically be the same as capitalism, 
using the technology, industrial structure and industry developed 
under class society without change (see <a href="secH3.html#sech312">section H.3.12</a>).
Rather than condemn Kropotkin, Stack's comments (and those
like them) simply show the poverty of the Leninist critique 
of capitalism and its vision of the socialist future.
</p><p>
All in all, anyone who claims that anarchism is <i>"backward looking"</i>
or <i>"yearns for the past"</i> simply has no idea what they are talking
about.</p>

<a name="sech24"><h2>H.2.4 Do anarchists think <i>"the state is the main enemy"</i>?</h2></a>

<p>
Pat Stack argues that <i>"the idea that dominates anarchist thought"</i> 
is <i>"that the state is the main enemy, rather than identifying the 
state as one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed."</i>
[<i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i>, <b>Socialist Review</b>, no. 246] Marxist
Paul Thomas states that <i>"Anarchists insist that the basis source of social
injustice is the state."</i> [<b>Karl Marx and the Anarchists</b>, p. 2]
</p><p>
On the face of it, such assertions make little sense. After all, was not the 
first work by the first self-declared anarchist called <b>What is Property?</b> 
and contained the revolutionary maxim <b><i>"property is theft"</i></b>? Surely 
this fact alone would be enough to put to rest the notion that anarchists view 
the state as the main problem in the world? Obviously not. Flying in the face
of this well known fact as well as anarchist theory, Marxists have constantly 
repeated the falsehood that anarchists consider the state as the main enemy. 
Indeed, Stack and Thomas are simply repeating an earlier assertion by Engels:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism
and communism. The chief point concerning the former is that he
does not regard capital, i.e. the class antagonism between
capitalists and wage workers which has arisen through social
development, but the <b>state</b> as the main enemy to be abolished 
. . . our view [is] that state power is nothing more than the
organisation which the ruling classes - landowners and capitalists
- have provided for themselves in order to protect their social
privileges, Bakunin maintains that it is the <b>state</b> which has 
created capital, that the capitalist has his capital <b>only be the 
grace of the state.</b> As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, 
it is above all the state which must be done away with and then 
capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: 
Do away with capital, the concentration of all means of production 
in the hands of a few, and the state will fall of itself. The 
difference is an essential one . . . the abolition of capital 
<b>is</b> precisely the social revolution."</i> [Marx, Engels and 
Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 71]
</blockquote></p><p>
As will come as no surprise, Engels did not bother to indicate 
where he discovered Bakunin's ideas on these matters. Similarly,
his followers raise this kind of assertion as a truism, apparently
without the need for evidence to support the claim. This is
hardly surprising as anarchists, including Bakunin, have expressed 
an idea distinctly at odds with Engels' claims, namely that the 
social revolution would be marked by the abolition of capitalism 
and the state at the same time. That this is the case can be seen 
from John Stuart Mill who, unlike Engels, saw that Bakunin's ideas
meant <i>"not only the annihilation of all government, but getting all 
property of all kinds out of the hands of the possessors to be used 
for the general benefit."</i> [<i>"Chapters on Socialism,"</i>
<b>Principles of Political Economy</b>, p. 376] If the great 
liberal thinker could discern this aspect of anarchism, why not Engels? 
</p><p>
After all, this vision of a <b>social</b> revolution (i.e. one that combined 
political, social <b>and</b> economic goals) occurred continuously throughout 
Bakunin's writings when he was an anarchist. Indeed, to claim that he, or 
anarchists in general, just opposed the state suggests a total unfamiliarity 
with anarchist theory. For Bakunin, like all anarchists, the abolition of the 
state occurs at the same time as the abolition of capital. This joint 
abolition <b>is</b> precisely the social revolution. As one academic put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"In Bakunin's view, the struggle against the main concentration of
power in society, the state, was <b>no less necessary</b> than the 
struggle against capital. Engels, however, puts the matter somewhat
differently, arguing that for Bakunin the state was the main enemy,
as if Bakunin had not held that capital, too, was an enemy and that
its expropriation was a necessary even if not sufficient condition
for the social revolution . . . [Engels'] formulation . . . distorts
Bakunin's argument, which also held capital to be an evil necessary
to abolish"</i> [Alvin W. Gouldner, <i>"Marx's Last Battle: 
Bakunin and the First International"</i>, pp. 853-884, <b>Theory 
and Society</b>, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 863-4]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
In 1865, for example, we discover Bakunin arguing that anarchists
<i>"seek the destruction of all States"</i> in his <i>"Program of the
Brotherhood."</i> Yet he also argued that a member of this association
<i>"must be socialist"</i> and see that <i>"labour"</i> was the <i>"sole producer
of social assets"</i> and so <i>"anyone enjoying these without working
is an exploiter of another man's labour, a thief."</i> They must also
<i>"understand that there is no liberty in the absence of equality"</i>
and so the <i>"attainment of the widest liberty"</i> is possible only
<i>"amid the most perfect (de jure and de facto) political, 
economic and social equality."</i> The <i>"sole and supreme objective"</i>
of the revolution <i>"will be the effective political, economic
and social emancipation of the people."</i> This was because political
liberty <i>"is not feasible without political equality. And the
latter is impossible without economic and social equality."</i>
This means that the <i>"land belongs to everyone. But usufruct of
it will belong only to those who till it with their own hands."</i>
As regards industry, <i>"through the unaided efforts and economic
powers of the workers' associations, capital and the instruments
of labour will pass into the possession of those who will apply
them . . . through their own labours."</i> He opposed sexism, for
women are <i>"equal in all political and social rights."</i> Ultimately,
<i>"[n]o revolution could succeed . . . unless it was simultaneously
a political and a social revolution. Any exclusively political
revolution . . . will, insofar as it consequently does not have
the immediate, effective, political and economic emancipation
of the people as its primary objective, prove to be . . . illusory,
phoney."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, pp. 134-41]
</p><p>
In 1868, Bakunin was arguing the same ideas. The <i>"Association
of the International Brethren seeks simultaneously universal,
social, philosophical, economic and political revolution, so
that the present order of things, rooted in property,
exploitation, domination and the authority principle"</i> will
be destroyed. The <i>"revolution as we understand it will . . .
set about the . . . complete destruction of the State . . .
The natural and necessary upshot of that destruction"</i> will
include the <i>"[d]issolution of the army, magistracy, bureaucracy,
police and clergy"</i> and <i>"[a]ll productive capital and instruments
of labour . . . be[ing] confiscated for the benefit of
toilers associations, which will have to put them to use in
collective production"</i> as well as the <i>"[s]eizure of all Church
and State properties."</i> The <i>"federated Alliance of all labour
associations . . . will constitute the Commune."</i> The people
<i>"must make the revolution everywhere, and . . . ultimate
direction of it must at all times be vested in the people
organised into a free federation of agricultural and
industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom up."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 152-6]
</p><p>
As these the words of a person who considered the state as
the <i>"chief evil"</i> or <i>"that the state is the main enemy"</i>? 
Of course not, rather Bakunin clearly identified the state as 
one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed. As
he put it, the <i>"State, which has never had any task other
than to regularise, sanction and . . . protect the rule of
the privileged classes and exploitation of the people's
labour for the rich, must be abolished. Consequently, this
requires that society be organised from the bottom up
through the free formation and free federation of worker
associations, industrial, agricultural, scientific and
artisan alike, . . . founded upon collective ownership of
the land, capital, raw materials and the instruments of
labour, which is to say, all large-scale property . . . 
leaving to private and hereditary possession only those
items that are actually for personal use."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 182] Clearly, as Wayne Thorpe notes, for Bakunin <i>"[o]nly 
the simultaneous destruction of the state and of the capitalist 
system, accompanied by the organisation from below of a federalist 
system of administration based upon labour's economic associations 
. . . could achieve true liberty."</i> [<b>"The Workers Themselves"</b>, 
p. 6]
</p><p>
Rather than seeing the state as the main evil to be abolished, 
Bakunin always stressed that a revolution must be economic 
<b>and</b> political in nature, that it must ensure political,
economic and social liberty and equality. As such, he argued
for <b>both</b> the destruction of the state and the expropriation 
of capital (both acts conducted, incidentally, by a federation of
workers' associations or workers' councils). While the apparatus
of the state was being destroyed (<i>"Dissolution of the army, 
magistracy, bureaucracy, police and clergy"</i>), capitalism was
also being uprooted and destroyed (<i>"All productive capital and 
instruments of labour . . . confiscated for the benefit of
toilers associations"</i>). To assert, as Engels did, that Bakunin 
ignored the necessity of abolishing capitalism and the other 
evils of the current system while focusing exclusively on the 
state, is simply distorting his ideas. As Mark Leier summarises in
his excellent biography of Bakunin, Engels <i>"was just flat-out wrong 
. . . What Bakunin did argue was that the social revolution had to be 
launched against the state and capitalism simultaneously, for the two 
reinforced each other."</i> [<b>Bakunin: The Creative Passion</b>, p. 274]
</p><p>
Kropotkin, unsurprisingly, argued along identical lines as Bakunin. He 
stressed that <i>"the revolution will burn on until it has accomplished 
its mission: the abolition of property-owning and of the State."</i> This 
revolution, he re-iterated, would be a <i>"mass rising up against property 
and the State."</i> Indeed, Kropotkin always stressed that <i>"there is 
one point to which all socialists adhere: the expropriation of capital 
must result from the coming revolution."</i> This mean that <i>"the area 
of struggle against capital, and against the sustainer of capital - 
government"</i> could be one in which <i>"various groups can act in 
agreement"</i> and so <i>"any struggle that prepares for that expropriation 
should be sustained in unanimity by all the socialist groups, to whatever 
shading they belong."</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 75 and p. 204] Little 
wonder Kropotkin wrote his famous article <i>"Expropriation"</i> on this 
subject! As he put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Expropriation - that is the guiding word of the coming revolution, 
without which it will fail in its historic mission: the complete 
expropriation of all those who have the means of exploiting human 
beings; the return to the community of the nation of everything that 
in the hands of anyone can be used to exploit others."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
pp. 207-8]
</blockquote></p><p>
This was because he was well aware of the oppressive nature of capitalism:
<i>"For the worker who <b>must sell</b> his labour, it is impossible to 
remain <b>free</b>, and it is precisely because it is impossible that we 
are anarchists and communists."</i> [<b>Selected Writings on Anarchism and 
Revolution</b>, p. 305] For Kropotkin, <i>"the task we impose ourselves"</i> 
is to acquire <i>"sufficient influence to induce the workmen to avail 
themselves of the first opportunity of taking possession of land and the 
mines, of railways and factories,"</i> to bring working class people <i>"to 
the conviction that they must reply on themselves to get rid of the 
oppression of Capital."</i> [<b>Act for Yourselves</b>, p. 32] Strange 
words if Marxist assertions were true. As can be seen, Kropotkin is simply 
following Bakunin's ideas on the matter. He, like Bakunin, was well aware 
of the evils of capitalism and that the state protects these evils.
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, he called anarchism <i>"the no-government system of
socialism."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 46] For Kropotkin, the <i>"State 
is there to protect exploitation, speculation and private property; it 
is itself the by-product of the rapine of the people. The proletariat
must rely on his own hands; he can expect nothing of the State. It is 
nothing more than an organisation devised to hinder emancipation at 
all costs."</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 27] Rather than see the 
state as the main evil, he clearly saw it as the protector of capitalism 
- in other words, as one aspect of a class system which needed to be 
replaced by a better society:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The very words Anarchist-Communism show in what direction society, in
our opinion, is already going, and one what lines it can get rid of
the oppressive powers of Capital and Government . . . The first 
conviction to acquire is that nothing short of expropriation on a 
vast scale, carried out by the workmen themselves, can be the first
step towards a reorganisation of our production on Socialist principles."</i>
[Kropotkin, <b>Act for Yourselves</b>, pp. 32-3]
</blockquote></p><p>
Similarly with all other anarchists. Emma Goldman, for example, 
summarised for all anarchists when she argued that anarchism 
<i>"really stands for"</i> the <i>"liberation of the human body from 
the domination of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint 
of government."</i> Goldman was well aware that wealth <i>"means 
power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave,
to outrage, to degrade."</i> She considered property <i>"not only a hindrance 
to human well-being, but an obstacle, a deadly barrier, to all progress."</i> 
A key problem of modern society was that <i>"man must sell his labour"</i> 
and so <i>"his inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a 
master."</i> Anarchism, she stressed, was the <i>"the only philosophy
that can and will do away with this humiliating and degrading situation
. . . There can be no freedom in the large sense of the word . . . so
long as mercenary and commercial considerations play an important part
in the determination of personal conduct."</i> The state, ironically for
Stack's claim, was <i>"necessary <b>only</b> to maintain or protect 
property and monopoly."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 73, p. 66, p. 50 
and p. 51]
</p><p>
Errico Malatesta, likewise, stressed that, for <i>"all anarchists,"</i> it was 
definitely a case that the <i>"abolition of political power is not possible 
without the simultaneous destruction of economic privilege."</i> The 
<i>"Anarchist Programme"</i> he drafted listed <i>"Abolition of private 
property"</i> before <i>"Abolition of government"</i> and argued that 
<i>"the present state of society"</i> was one in <i>"which some have 
inherited the land and all social wealth, while the mass of the people, 
disinherited in all respects, is exploited and oppressed by a small 
possessing class."</i> It ends by arguing that anarchism wants <i>"the 
complete destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man"</i> 
and for <i>"expropriation of landowners and capitalists for the benefit
of all; and the abolition of government."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His 
Life and Ideas</b>, p. 158, p. 184, p. 183, p. 197 and p. 198] Nearly 
three decades previously, we find Malatesta arguing the same idea. As he
put it in 1891, anarchists <i>"struggle for anarchy, and for socialism, 
because we believe that anarchy and socialism must be realised immediately, 
that is to say that in the revolutionary act we must drive government away, 
abolish property . . . human progress is measured by the extent government 
power and private property are reduced."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 54] 
</p><p>
Little wonder Bertrand Russell stated that anarchism <i>"is associated 
with belief in the communal ownership of land and capital"</i> because,
like Marxism, it has the <i>"perception that private capital is a 
source of tyranny by certain individuals over others."</i> [<b>Roads to
Freedom</b>, p. 40] Russell was, of course, simply pointing out the 
obvious. As Brian Morris correctly summarises:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view 
of politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil, 
ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a 
misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way 
anarchism has been defined, and partly because Marxist historians 
have tried to exclude anarchism from the broader socialist movement. 
But when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . .
as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is 
clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision.
It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, 
and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it 
has been of the state."</i> [<i>"Anthropology and Anarchism,"</i> 
pp. 35-41, <b>Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed</b>, no. 45, p, p. 40]
</blockquote></p><p>
All in all, Marxist claims that anarchists view the state as
the <i>"chief evil"</i> or see the destruction of the state as the
<i>"main idea"</i> of anarchism are simply talking nonsense. In 
fact, rather than anarchists having a narrow view of social 
liberation, it is, in fact, Marxists who do so. By concentrating
almost exclusively on the (economic) class source of exploitation,
they blind themselves to other forms of exploitation and
domination that can exist independently of (economic) class
relationships. This can be seen from the amazing difficulty
that many of them got themselves into when trying to analyse
the Stalinist regime in Russia. Anarchists are well aware that
the state is just one aspect of the current class system but 
unlike Marxists we recognise that <i>"class rule must be placed 
in the much <b>larger</b> context of hierarchy and domination as 
a whole."</i> [Murray Bookchin, <b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, 
p. 28] This has been the anarchist position from the nineteenth
century onwards and one which is hard not to recognise if you are
at all familiar with the anarchist movement and its theory. As one 
historian notes, we have never been purely anti-state, but also 
anti-capitalist and opposed to all forms of oppression:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Anarchism rejected capitalism . . . not only because it viewed it as
inimical to social equality, but also because it saw it as a form of
domination detrimental to individual freedom. Its basic tenet regarded
hierarchical authority - be it the state, the church, the economic
elite, or patriarchy - as unnecessary and deleterious to the maximisation
of human potential."</i> [Jose Moya, <b>Italians in Buenos Aires's Anarchist 
Movement</b>, p. 197] 
</blockquote></p><p>
So we oppose the state because it is just one aspect of a class ridden and 
hierarchical system. We just recognise that all the evils of that system must 
be destroyed at the same time to ensure a <b>social</b> revolution rather 
than just a change in who the boss is.</p>

<a name="sech25"><h2>H.2.5 Do anarchists think <i>"full blown"</i> socialism will be created overnight?</h2></a>

<p>
Another area in which Marxists misrepresent anarchism is in the 
assertion that anarchists believe a completely socialist society 
(an ideal or <i>"utopian"</i> society, in other words) can be created 
<i>"overnight."</i> As Marxist Bertell Ollman puts it, <i>"[u]nlike 
anarcho-communists, none of us [Marxists] believe that communism will 
emerge full blown from a socialist revolution. Some kind of transition 
and period of indeterminate length for it to occur are required."</i> 
[Bertell Ollman (ed.), <b>Market Socialism: The Debate among Socialists</b>, 
p. 177] This assertion, while it is common, fails to understand the anarchist 
vision of revolution. We consider it a <b>process</b> and not an event: 
<i>"By revolution we do not mean just the insurrectionary act."</i> 
[Malatesta, <b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 156] 
</p><p>
Once this is understood, the idea that anarchists think a <i>"full blown"</i> 
anarchist society will be created <i>"overnight"</i> is a fallacy. As Murray 
Bookchin pointed out, <i>"Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta were not so naive as 
to believe that anarchism could be established overnight. In imputing this
notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted the Russian anarchist's 
views."</i> [<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 137] Indeed, Kropotkin 
stressed that anarchists <i>"do not believe that in any country the Revolution 
will be accomplished at a stroke, in the twinkling of a eye, as some socialists 
dream."</i> Moreover, <i>"[n]o fallacy more harmful has ever been spread than 
the fallacy of a 'One-day Revolution.'"</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 81] 
Bakunin argued that a <i>"more or less prolonged transitional period"</i> would
<i>"naturally follow in the wake of the great social crisis"</i> implied by 
social revolution. [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 412] The 
question, therefore, is not whether there will be a <i>"transitional"</i> 
society after a revolution but what <b>kind</b> of transition will it be. 
</p><p>
So anarchists are aware that a <i>"full blown"</i> communist society 
will not come about immediately. Rather, the creation of such a society will 
be a <b>process</b> which the revolution will start off. As Alexander Berkman 
put it in his classic introduction to communist-anarchist ideas <i>"you must 
not confuse the social revolution with anarchy. Revolution, in some of its 
stages, is a violent upheaval; anarchy is a social condition of freedom and 
peace. The revolution is the <b>means</b> of bringing anarchy about but it 
is not anarchy itself. It is to pave the road for anarchy, to establish 
conditions which will make a life of liberty possible."</i> However, the 
<i>"end shapes the means"</i> and so <i>"to achieve its purpose the revolution 
must be imbued with and directed by the anarchist spirit and ideas .  . . the 
social revolution must be anarchist in method as in aim."</i> [<b>What is 
Anarchism?</b>, p. 231]
</p><p>
Berkman also acknowledged that <i>"full blown"</i> communism was not likely 
after a successful revolution. <i>"Of course,"</i> he argued, <i>"when the 
social revolution has become thoroughly organised and production is functioning 
normally there will be enough for everybody. But in the first stages of the 
revolution, during the process of re-construction, we must take care to supply 
the people as best we can, and equally, which means rationing."</i> Clearly, 
in such circumstances <i>"full blown"</i> communism would be impossible and, 
unsurprisingly, Berkman argued that would not exist. However, the principles 
that inspire communism and anarchism could be applied immediately. This meant 
that both the state and capitalism would be abolished. While arguing that 
<i>"[t]here is no other way of securing economic equality, which alone is 
liberty"</i> than communist anarchism, he also stated that it is <i>"likely 
. . . that a country in social revolution may try various economic experiments 
. . . different countries and regions will probably try out various methods, 
and by practical experience learn the best way. The revolution is at the same 
time the opportunity and justification for it."</i> Rather than <i>"dictate 
to the future, to prescribe its mode of conduct"</i>, Berkman argued that his 
<i>"purpose is to suggest, in board outline the principles which must animate 
the revolution, the general lines of action it should follow if it is to 
accomplish its aim  - the reconstruction of society on a foundation of 
freedom and equality."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 215 and p. 230]
</p><p>
Malatesta argued along similar lines. While urging the <i>"complete destruction 
of the domination and exploitation of man by man"</i> by the <i>"expropriation 
of landlords and capitalists for the benefit of all"</i> and <i>"the abolition 
of government,"</i> he recognised that in <i>"the post-revolutionary period, 
in the period of reorganisation and transition, there might be 'offices for the 
concentration and distribution of the capital of collective enterprises', that 
there might or might not be titles recording the work done and the quantity of 
goods to which one is entitled."</i> However, he stressed that this <i>"is 
something we shall have to wait and see about, or rather, it is a problem 
which will have many and varied solutions according to the system of production 
and distribution which will prevail in the different localities and among the 
many . . . groupings that will exist."</i> He argued that while, eventually, all
groups of workers (particularly the peasants) will <i>"understand the advantages 
of communism or at least of the direct exchange of goods for goods,"</i> this 
may not happen <i>"in a day."</i> If some kind of money was used, then people 
should <i>"ensure that [it] truly represents the useful work performed by its 
possessors"</i> rather than being that <i>"powerful means of exploitation and 
oppression"</i> is currently is. [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, 
pp. 198-9 and pp. 100-1] Emma Goldman, also, saw <i>"a society based on 
voluntary co-operation of productive groups, communities and societies loosely 
federated together, eventually developing into a free communism, actuated by a 
solidarity of interests."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 50]
</p><p>
So rather than seeing a <i>"full blown"</i> communist society appearing 
instantly from a revolution, anarcho-communists see a period of 
transition in which the degree of communism in a given community 
or area is dependent on the objective conditions facing it. 
This period of transition would see different forms of social 
experimentation but the desire is to see libertarian communist 
principles as the basis of as much of this experimentation as 
possible. To claim that anarcho-communists ignore reality and 
see communism as being created overnight is simply a distortion 
of their ideas. Rather, they are aware that the development towards
communism is dependent on local conditions, conditions which 
can only be overcome in time and by the liberated community
re-organising production and extending it as required. Thus we
find Malatesta arguing 1884 that communism could be brought about 
immediately only in a very limited number of areas and, <i>"for the rest,"</i> 
collectivism would have to be accepted <i>"for a transitional period."</i>
This was because, <i>"[f]or communism to be possible, a high stage of 
moral development is required of the members of society, a sense of 
solidarity both elevated and profound, which the upsurge of the 
revolution may not suffice to induce. This doubt is the more 
justified in that material conditions favourable to this development 
will not exist at the beginning."</i> [quoted by Daniel Gurin,
<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 51]
</p><p>
Clearly, our argument contradicts the widely held view that 
anarchists believed an utopian world would be created instantly
after a revolution. Of course, by asserting that anarchists think 
<i>"full blown communism"</i> will occur without some form of transitional
period, Marxists paint a picture of anarchism as simply utopian, 
a theory which ignores objective reality in favour of wishful 
thinking. However, as seen above, such is not the case. Anarchists 
are aware that <i>"full blown communism"</i> is dependent on objective 
conditions and, therefore, cannot be implemented until those 
conditions are meet. Until such time as the objective conditions
are reached, various means of distributing goods, organising and
managing production, and so on will be tried. Such schemes will
be based as far as possible on communistic principles.
</p><p>
Such a period of transition would be based on libertarian and 
communist principles. The organisation of society would be 
anarchist - the state would be abolished and replaced by a free
federation of workers and community associations. The economic
structure would be socialist - production would be based on 
self-managed workplaces and the principles of distribution 
would be as communistic as possible under the given objective 
conditions.
</p><p>
It also seems strange for Marxists to claim that anarchists thought 
a <i>"full blown"</i> communist society was possible <i>"overnight"</i> 
given that anarchists had always noted the difficulties facing 
a social revolution. Kropotkin, for example, continually stressed 
that a revolution would face extensive economic disruption.
In his words:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"A political revolution can be accomplished without shaking the
foundations of industry, but a revolution where the people lay
hands upon property will inevitably paralyse exchange and 
production . . . This point cannot be too much insisted upon; 
the reorganisation of industry on a new basis . . . cannot be 
accomplished in a few days; nor, on the other hand, will people 
submit to be half starved for years in order to oblige the 
theorists who uphold the wage system. To tide over the period 
of stress they will demand what they have always demanded in 
such cases - communisation of supplies - the giving of 
rations."</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, pp. 72-3]
</blockquote></p><p>
The basic principles of this "transition" period would, 
therefore, be based on the <i>"socialising of production, 
consumption and exchange."</i> The state would be abolished 
and <i>"federated Communes"</i> would be created. The end of 
capitalism would be achieved by the <i>"expropriation"</i> of 
<i>"everything that enables any man - be he financier, 
mill-owner, or landlord - - to appropriate the product 
of others' toil."</i> Distribution of goods would be based 
on <i>"no stint or limit to what the community possesses 
in abundance, but equal sharing and dividing of those 
commodities which are scare or apt to run short."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 136, p. 61 and p. 76] Clearly, while not <i>"full blown"</i>
communism by any means, such a regime does lay the ground
for its eventual arrival. As Max Nettlau summarised, 
<i>"[n]othing but a superficial interpretation of some of
Kropotkin's observations could lead one to conclude that
anarchist communism could spring into life through an act
of sweeping improvisation, with the waving of a magic
wand."</i> [<b>A Short History of Anarchism</b>, p. 80]
</p><p>
This was what happened in the Spanish Revolution, for example.
Different collectives operated in different ways. Some tried
to introduce free communism, some a combination of rationing
and communism, others introduced equal pay, others equalised
pay as much as possible and so on. Over time, as economic 
conditions changed and difficulties developed the collectives
changed their mode of distribution to take them into account.
These collectives indicate well the practical aspects of
anarchist and its desire to accommodate and not ignore reality.
</p><p>
Lastly, and as an aside, it this anarchist awareness of the 
disruptive effects of a revolution on a country's economy which, 
in part, makes anarchists extremely sceptical of pro-Bolshevik
rationales that blame the difficult economic conditions facing 
the Russian Revolution for Bolshevik authoritarianism (see
<a href="secH6.html#sech61">section H.6.1</a> for a fuller discussion 
of this). If, as Kropotkin 
argued, a social revolution inevitably results in massive 
economic disruption then, clearly, Bolshevism should be 
avoided if it cannot handle such inevitable events. In such 
circumstances, centralisation would only aid the disruption, 
not reduce it. This awareness of the problems facing a social 
revolution also led anarchists to stress the importance of 
local action and mass participation. As Kropotkin put it, the 
<i>"immense constructive work demanded by a social revolution 
cannot be accomplished by a central government . . . It has 
need of knowledge, of brains and of the voluntary collaboration
of a host of local and specialised forces which alone can
attack the diversity of economic problems in their local
aspects."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, pp. 255-6]
Without this local action, co-ordinated joint activity would 
remain a dead letter. 
</p><p>
In summary, anarchists acknowledge that <b>politically</b> there is 
no transitional period (i.e. the state must be abolished and 
replaced by a free federation of self-managed working class
organisations). Economically anarchists recognise that different 
areas will develop in different ways and so there will be various
economical transitional forms. Rather than seeing <i>"full blown
communism"</i> being the instant result of a socialist revolution,
anarchist-communists actually argue the opposite - <i>"full blown
communism"</i> will develop only after a successful revolution and
the inevitable period of social reconstruction which comes after
it. A <i>"full blown"</i> communist economy will develop as society becomes
ready for it. What we <b>do</b> argue is that any transitional economic
form must be based on the principles of the type of society
it desires. In other words, any transitional period must be
as communistic as possible if communism is your final aim and,
equally, it must be libertarian if your final goal is freedom.
</p><p>
Also see <a href="secI2.html#seci22">section I.2.2</a> 
for further discussion on this issue.</p>

<a name="sech26"><h2>H.2.6 How do Marxists misrepresent Anarchist ideas on mutual aid?</h2></a>

<p>
Anarchist ideas on mutual aid are often misrepresented by
Marxists. Looking at Pat Stack's <i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i> article,
for example, we find a particularly terrible misrepresentation
of Kropotkin's ideas. Indeed, it is so incorrect that it is
either a product of ignorance or a desire to deceive (and
as we shall indicate, it is probably the latter). Here is
Stack's account of Kropotkin's ideas:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"And the anarchist Peter Kropotkin, far from seeing class 
conflict as the dynamic for social change as Marx did, saw 
co-operation being at the root of the social process. He 
believed the co-operation of what he termed 'mutual aid' 
was the natural order, which was disrupted by centralised 
states. Indeed in everything from public walkways and 
libraries through to the Red Cross, Kropotkin felt he was 
witnessing confirmation that society was moving towards 
his mutual aid, prevented only from completing the journey 
by the state. It follows that if class conflict is not the 
motor of change, the working class is not the agent and 
collective struggle not the means."</i> [<i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i>,
<b>Socialist Review</b>, no. 246]
</blockquote></p><p>
There are three issues with Stack's summary. Firstly, Kropotkin 
did not, in fact, reject class conflict as the <i>"dynamic of social 
change"</i> nor reject the working class as its <i>"agent."</i> Secondly, 
all of Stack's examples of <i>"Mutual Aid"</i> do not, in fact, appear 
in Kropotkin's classic book <b>Mutual Aid</b>. They do appear in other 
works by Kropotkin but <b>not</b> as examples of <i>"mutual aid."</i> 
Thirdly, in <b>Mutual Aid</b> Kropotkin discusses such aspects of working 
class <i>"collective struggle"</i> as strikes and unions. All in all, it 
is Stack's total and utter lack of understanding of Kropotkin's ideas 
which immediately stands out from his comments.
</p><p>
As we have discussed how collective, working class direct action,
organisation and solidarity in the class struggle were at the
core of Kropotkin's politics in 
<a href="secH2.html#sech22">section H.2.2</a>, we will not do
so here. Rather, we will discuss how Stack lies about Kropotkin's
ideas on mutual aid. As just noted, the examples Stack lists
are not to be found in Kropotkin's classic work <b>Mutual Aid</b>.
Now, <b>if</b> Kropotkin <b>had</b> considered them as examples of 
<i>"mutual aid"</i> then he would have listed them in that work. This 
does not mean, however, that Kropotkin did not mention these examples.
He does, but in other works (notably his essay <b>Anarchist-Communism: 
Its Basis and Principles</b>) and he does <b>not</b> use them as examples 
of mutual aid. Here are Kropotkin's own words on these examples:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"We maintain, moreover, not only that communism is a desirable 
state of society, but that the growing tendency of modern
society is precisely towards communism - free communism - 
notwithstanding the seemingly contradictory growth of
individualism. In the growth of individualism . . . we see 
merely the endeavours of the individual towards emancipating
himself from the steadily growing powers of capital and the
State. But side by side with this growth we see also . . .  
the latent struggle of the producers of wealth to maintain 
the partial communism of old, as well as to reintroduce 
communist principles in a new shape, as soon as favourable 
conditions permit it. . .  the communist tendency is 
continually reasserting itself and trying to make its way 
into public life. The penny bridge disappears before the
public bridge; and the turnpike road before the free road. The 
same spirit pervades thousands of other institutions. Museums,
free libraries, and free public schools; parks and pleasure 
grounds; paved and lighted streets, free for everybody's use; 
water supplied to private dwellings, with a growing tendency 
towards disregarding the exact amount of it used by the individual;
tramways and railways which have already begun to introduce the 
season ticket or the uniform tax, and will surely go much
further in this line when they are no longer private property: 
all these are tokens showing in what direction further progress is
to be expected. 
</p><p>
"It is in the direction of putting the wants of the individual 
<b>above</b> the valuation of the service he has rendered, or might 
render, to society; in considering society as a whole, so 
intimately connected together that a service rendered to any 
individual is a service rendered to the whole society."</i> 
[<b>Anarchism</b>, pp. 59-60]
</blockquote></p><p>
As is clear, the examples Stack selects have nothing to do with 
mutual aid in Kropotkin's eyes. Rather, they are examples of 
communistic tendencies within capitalism, empirical evidence
that can be used to not only show that communism can work but
also that it is not a utopian social solution but an expression
of tendencies within society. Simply put, he is using examples
from existing society to show that communism is not impossible.
</p><p>
Similarly with Stack's other examples, which are <b>not</b> used as 
expressions of <i>"mutual aid"</i> but rather as evidence that social 
life can be organised without government. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 65-7] 
Just as with communism, he gave concrete examples of libertarian 
tendencies within society to prove the possibility of an anarchist 
society. And just like his examples of communistic activities within 
capitalism, his examples of co-operation without the state are not 
listed as examples of <i>"mutual aid."</i>
</p><p>
All this would suggest that Stack has either not read Kropotkin's 
works or that he has and consciously decided to misrepresent his 
ideas. In fact, its a combination of the two. Stack (as proven 
by his talk at <b>Marxism 2001</b>) gathered his examples of <i>"mutual 
aid"</i> from Paul Avrich's essay <i>"Kropotkin's Ethical Anarchism"</i> 
contained in his <b>Anarchist Portraits</b>. As such, he has not
read the source material. Moreover, he simply distorted what
Avrich wrote. In other words, not only has he not read Kropotkin's
works, he consciously decided to misrepresent the secondary
source he used. This indicates the quality of almost all Marxist 
critiques of anarchism.
</p><p>
For example, Avrich correctly noted that Kropotkin did not 
<i>"deny that the 'struggle for existence' played an important
role in the evolution of species. In <b>Mutual Aid</b> he declares 
unequivocally that 'life <b>is</b> struggle; and in that struggle
the fittest survive.'"</i> Kropotkin simply argued that co-operation
played a key role in determining who was, in fact, the fittest.
Similarly, Avrich listed many of the same examples Stack presents 
but not in his discussion of Kropotkin's ideas on mutual aid. 
Rather, he correctly did so in his discussion of how Kropotkin 
saw examples of anarchist communism <i>"manifesting itself 'in the 
thousands of developments of modern life.'"</i> This did not mean 
that Kropotkin did not see the need for a social revolution, quite 
the reverse. As Avrich noted, Kropotkin <i>"did not shrink from the 
necessity of revolution"</i> as he <i>"did not expect the propertied 
classes to give up their privileges and possession without a fight."</i> 
This <i>"was to be a <b>social</b> revolution, carried out by the 
masses themselves"</i> achieved by means of <i>"expropriation"</i> of
social wealth. [<b>Anarchist Portraits</b>, p. 58, p. 62 and p. 66]
</p><p>
So much for Stack's claims. As can be seen, they are not only
a total misrepresentation of Kropotkin's work, they are also
a distortion of his source! 
</p><p>
A few more points need to be raised on this subject. 
</p><p>
Firstly, Kropotkin never claimed that mutual aid <i>"was the natural 
order."</i> Rather, he stressed that Mutual Aid was (to use the 
subtitle of his book on the subject) <i>"a factor of evolution."</i> 
As he put it, mutual aid <i>"represents one of the factors of
evolution"</i>, another being <i>"the self-assertion of the individual,
not only to attain personal or caste superiority, economical, political,
and spiritual, but also in its much more important although less evident
function of breaking through the bonds, always prone to become crystallised,
which the tribe, the village community, the city, and the State impose
upon the individual."</i> Thus Kropotkin recognised that there is class 
struggle within society as well as <i>"the self-assertion of the individual 
taken as a progressive element"</i> (i.e., struggle against forms of social
association which now hinder individual freedom and development). Kropotkin
did not deny the role of struggle, in fact the opposite as he stressed 
that the book's examples concentrated on mutual aid simply because mutual 
struggle (between individuals of the same species) had <i>"already been 
analysed, described, and glorified from time immemorial"</i> and, as such, 
he felt no need to illustrate it. He did note that it <i>"was necessary to 
show, first of all, the immense part which this factor plays in the evolution 
of both the animal world and human societies. Only after this has been fully 
recognised will it be possible to proceed to a comparison between the two 
factors."</i> [<b>Mutual Aid</b>, p. 231 and pp. 231-2] So at no stage did 
Kropotkin deny either factor (unlike the bourgeois apologists he was refuting). 
</p><p>
Secondly, Stack's argument that Kropotkin argued that co-operation was the 
natural order is in contradiction with his other claims that anarchism 
<i>"despises the collectivity"</i> and <i>"dismiss[es] the importance of 
the collective nature of change"</i> (see <a href="secH2.html#sech22">section H.2.2</a>). 
How can you have co-operation without forming a collective? And, equally, surely
support for co-operation clearly implies the recognition of the <i>"collective 
nature of change"</i>? Moreover, had Stack bothered to <i><b>read</b></i> Kropotkin's 
classic he would have been aware that both unions and strikes are listed as 
expressions of <i>"mutual aid"</i> (a fact, of course, which would undermine 
Stack's silly assertion that anarchists reject collective working class 
struggle and organisation). Thus we find Kropotkin stating that <i>"Unionism"</i> 
expressed the <i>"worker's need of mutual support"</i> as well as discussing how 
the state <i>"legislated against the workers' unions"</i> and that these were 
<i>"the conditions under which the mutual-aid tendency had to make its way."</i> 
<i>"To practise mutual support under such circumstances was anything but an
easy task."</i> This repression failed, as <i>"the workers' unions were 
continually reconstituted"</i> and spread, forming <i>"vigourous federal 
organisations . . . to support the branches during strikes and prosecutions."</i> 
In spite of the difficulties in organising unions and fighting strikes, he noted 
that <i>"every year there are thousands of strikes . . . the most severe and 
protracted contests being, as a rule, the so-called 'sympathy strikes,' which 
are entered upon to support locked-out comrades or to maintain the rights of 
the unions."</i> Anyone (like Kropotkin) who had <i>"lived among strikers 
speak with admiration of the mutual aid and support which are constantly 
practised by them."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 210-3] 
</p><p>
Kropotkin, as noted, recognised the importance of struggle or competition as 
a means of survival but also argued that co-operation within a species was 
the best means for it to survive in a hostile environment. This applied to 
life under capitalism. In the hostile environment of class society, then the 
only way in which working class people could survive would be to practice 
mutual aid (in other words, solidarity). Little wonder, then, that Kropotkin 
listed strikes and unions as expressions of mutual aid in capitalist society. 
Moreover, if we take Stack's arguments at face value, then he clearly is 
arguing that solidarity is not an important factor in the class struggle and 
that mutual aid and co-operation cannot change the world! Hardly what 
you would expect a socialist to argue. In other words, his inaccurate 
diatribe against Kropotkin backfires on his own ideas.
</p><p>
Thirdly, <b>Mutual Aid</b> is primarily a work of popular science and not a 
work on revolutionary anarchist theory like, say, <b>The Conquest of Bread</b> 
or <b>Words of a Rebel</b>. As such, it does not present a full example of 
Kropotkin's revolutionary ideas and how mutual aid fits into them. However, 
it does present some insights on the question of social progress which indicate 
that he did not think that <i>"co-operation"</i> was <i>"at the root of the 
social process,"</i> as Stack claims. For example, Kropotkin noted that 
<i>"[w]hen Mutual Aid institutions . . . began . . . to lose their primitive 
character, to be invaded by parasitic growths, and thus to become hindrances
to process, the revolt of individuals against these institutions took always 
two different aspects. Part of those who rose up strove to purify the old 
institutions, or to work out a higher form of commonwealth."</i> But at the 
same time, others <i>"endeavoured to break down the protective institutions of
mutual support, with no other intention but to increase their own wealth and 
their own powers."</i> In this conflict <i>"lies the real tragedy of history."</i> 
He also noted that the mutual aid tendency <i>"continued to live in the villages 
and among the poorer classes in the towns."</i> Indeed, <i>"in so far as"</i> as 
new <i>"economical and social institutions"</i> were <i>"a creation of the 
masses"</i> they <i>"have all originated from the same source"</i> of mutual 
aid. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 18-9 and p. 180] Clearly, Kropotkin saw history 
marked by both co-operation and conflict as you would expect in a society 
divided by class and hierarchy.
</p><p>
Significantly, Kropotkin considered <b>Mutual Aid</b> as an attempt to 
write history from below, from the perspective of the oppressed. As he 
put it, history, <i>"such as it has hitherto been written, is almost 
entirely a description of the ways and means by which theocracy, 
military power, autocracy, and, later on, the richer classes' rule 
have been promoted, established, and maintained."</i> The <i>"mutual 
aid factor has been hitherto totally lost sight of; it was simply 
denied, or even scoffed at."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 231] He was 
well aware that mutual aid (or solidarity) could not be applied 
between classes in a class society. Indeed, as noted, his chapters on 
mutual aid under capitalism contain the strike and union. As he put it 
in an earlier work:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"What solidarity can exist between the capitalist and the worker he 
exploits? Between the head of an army and the soldier? Between the 
governing and the governed?"</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 30]
</blockquote></p><p>
In summary, Stack's assertions about Kropotkin's theory of
<i>"Mutual Aid"</i> are simply false. He simply distorts the source
material and shows a total ignorance of Kropotkin's work (which
he obviously has not bothered to read before criticising it).
A truthful account of <i>"Mutual Aid"</i> would involve recognising
that Kropotkin showed it being expressed in both strikes and
labour unions and that he saw solidarity between working 
people as the means of not only surviving within the hostile
environment of capitalism but also as the basis of a mass
revolution which would end it. </p>

<a name="sech27"><h2>H.2.7 Who do anarchists see as their 
<i>"agents of social change"</i>?</h2></a>

<p>
It is often charged, usually without any evidence, that
anarchists do not see the working class as the <i>"agent"</i>
of the social revolution. Pat Stack, for example, states
<i>"the failure of anarchism [is] to understand the centrality 
of the working class itself."</i> He argues that for Marx, <i>"the 
working class would change the world and in the process 
change itself. It would become the agent for social advance 
and human liberty."</i> For Bakunin, however, <i>"skilled artisans 
and organised factory workers, far from being the source of 
the destruction of capitalism, were 'tainted by pretensions 
and aspirations'. Instead Bakunin looked to those cast aside 
by capitalism, those most damaged, brutalised and marginalised. 
The lumpen proletariat, the outlaws, the 'uncivilised, 
disinherited, illiterate', as he put it, would be his agents 
for change."</i> [<i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i>, <b>Socialist 
Review</b>, no. 246] He fails to provide any references for 
his accusations. This is unsurprising, as to do so would
mean that the reader could check for themselves the validity
of Stack's claims.
</p><p>
Take, for example, the quote <i>"uncivilised, disinherited, 
illiterate"</i> Stack uses as evidence. This expression is
from an essay written by Bakunin in 1872 and which expressed
what he considered the differences between his ideas and those 
of Marx. The quote can be found on page 294 of <b>Bakunin on 
Anarchism</b>. On the previous page, we discover Bakunin arguing 
that <i>"for the International to be a real power, it must be able 
to organise within its ranks the immense majority of the proletariat 
of Europe, of America, of all lands."</i> [p. 293] Clearly Stack is 
quoting out of context, distorting Bakunin's position to present a
radically false image of anarchism. Moreover, as we will indicate, 
Stack's also quotes them outside the historical context as well.
</p><p>
Let us begin with Bakunin's views on <i>"skilled artisans and organised 
factory workers."</i> In <b>Statism and Anarchy</b>, for example, we 
discover Bakunin arguing that the <i>"proletariat . . . must enter the 
International [Workers' Association] en masse, form factory, artisan, 
and agrarian sections, and unite them into local federations"</i> for 
<i>"the sake of its own liberation."</i> [p. 51] This perspective
is the predominant one in Bakunin's ideas with the Russian continually
arguing that anarchists saw <i>"the new social order"</i> being <i>"attained 
. . . through the social (and therefore anti-political) organisation and 
power of the working masses of the cities and villages."</i> He argued 
that <i>"only the trade union sections can give their members  . . .
practical education and consequently only they can draw into the 
organisation of the International the masses of the proletariat, those 
masses without whose practical co-operation . . . the Social Revolution 
will never be able to triumph."</i> The International, in Bakunin's words,
<i>"organises the working masses . . .  from the bottom up"</i> and that 
this was <i>"the proper aim of the organisation of trade union sections."</i> 
He stressed that revolutionaries must <i>"[o]rganise the city proletariat in 
the name of revolutionary Socialism . . . [and] unite it into one preparatory 
organisation together with the peasantry."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy 
of Bakunin</b>, p. 300, p. 310, p. 319 and p. 378]
</p><p>
This support for organised workers and artisans can also be seen from 
the rest of the essay Stack distorts, in which Bakunin discusses the 
<i>"flower of the proletariat"</i> as well as the policy that the 
<b>International Workingmen's Association</b> should follow (i.e. the 
organised revolutionary workers). He argued that its <i>"sections and 
federations [must be] free to develop its own policies . . . [to] attain 
real unity, basically economic, which will necessarily lead to real 
political unity . . . The foundation for the unity of the International 
. . . has already been laid by the common sufferings, interests, needs, 
and real aspirations of the workers of the whole world."</i> He stressed 
that <i>"the International has been . . . the work of the proletariat 
itself . . . It was their keen and profound instinct as workers . . . 
which impelled them to find the principle and true purpose of the 
International. They took the common needs  already in existence as the 
foundation and saw the <b>international organisation of economic conflict 
against capitalism</b> as the true objective of this association. In 
giving it exclusively this base and aim, the workers at once established 
the entire power of the International. They opened  wide the gates to all 
the millions of the oppressed and exploited."</i> The International, as 
well as <i>"organising local, national and international strikes"</i> 
and <i>"establishing national and international trade unions,"</i> 
would discuss <i>"political and philosophical questions."</i> The 
workers <i>"join the International for one very practical purpose:
solidarity in the struggle for full economic rights against the 
oppressive exploitation by the bourgeoisie."</i> [<b>Bakunin on 
Anarchism</b>, pp. 297-8, pp. 298-9 and pp. 301-2]
</p><p>
All this, needless to say, makes a total mockery of Stack's claim 
that Bakunin did not see <i>"skilled artisans and organised factory 
workers"</i> as <i>"the source of the destruction of capitalism"</i> and 
<i>"agents for change."</i> Indeed, it is hard to find a greater
distortion of Bakunin's ideas. Rather than dismiss <i>"skilled 
artisans"</i> and <i>"organised factory workers"</i> Bakunin desired to 
organise them along with agricultural workers into unions and 
get these unions to affiliate to the <b>International Workers' 
Association</b>. He argued again and again that the working class, 
organised in union, were the means of making a revolution (i.e. <i>"the 
source of the destruction of capitalism,"</i> to use Stack's words). 
</p><p>
Only in <b>this</b> context can we understand Bakunin's comments which
Stack (selectively) quotes. Any apparent contradiction generated by 
Stack's quoting out of context is quickly solved by looking at Bakunin's 
work. This reference to the <i>"uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate"</i> 
comes from a polemic against Marx. From the context, it can quickly be 
seen that by these terms Bakunin meant the bulk of the working class. In 
his words:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the Marxists, the 
upper layer, the aristocracy of labour, those who are the most cultured, who 
earn more and live more comfortably that all the other workers. Precisely 
this semi-bourgeois layer of workers would, if the Marxists had their way, 
constitute their <b>fourth governing class.</b> This could indeed happen if 
the great mass of the proletariat does not guard against it. By virtue of 
its relative well-being and semi-bourgeois position, this upper layer of 
workers is unfortunately only too deeply saturated with all the political 
and social prejudices and all the narrow aspirations and pretensions of 
the bourgeoisie. Of all the proletariat, this upper layer is the least 
socialist, the most individualist.
</p><p>
"By the <b>flower of the proletariat</b>, I mean above all that great 
mass, those millions of the uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable, 
the illiterates . . . I mean precisely that eternal 'meat' (on which 
governments thrive), that great <b>rabble of the people</b> (underdogs, 
'dregs of society') ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels by the 
phrase . . . Lumpenproletariat"</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 294]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus Bakunin contrasted a <i>"semi-bourgeois"</i> layer to the 
<i>"great mass of the proletariat."</i> In a later work, Bakunin 
makes the same point, namely that there was <i>"a special category 
of relatively affluent workers, earning higher wages, boasting of 
their literary capacities and . . . impregnated by a variety of 
bourgeois prejudices . . . in Italy . . . they are insignificant 
in number and influence . . . In Italy it is the extremely poor 
proletariat that predominates. Marx speaks disdainfully, but quite 
unjustly, of this <b>Lumpenproletariat.</b> For in them, and only in 
them, and not in the bourgeois strata of workers, are there crystallised 
the entire intelligence and power of the coming Social Revolution."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 334] Again it is clear that Bakunin is referring to 
a small minority within the working class and <b>not</b> dismissing the 
working class as a whole. He explicitly pointed to the <i>"<b>bourgeois-influenced</b> 
minority of the urban proletariat"</i> and contrasted this minority to 
<i>"the mass of the proletariat, both rural and urban."</i> [<b>Michael 
Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 254]
</p><p>
Clearly, Stack is distorting Bakunin's ideas on this subject 
when he claims that Bakunin thought <b>all</b> workers were <i>"tainted by 
pretensions and aspirations."</i> In fact, like Marx, Engels and 
Lenin, Bakunin differentiated between different types of 
workers. This did not mean he rejected organised workers or 
skilled artisans nor the organisation of working people into 
revolutionary unions, quite the reverse. As can be seen, 
Bakunin argued there was a group of workers who accepted 
bourgeois society and did relatively well under it. It was 
<b>these</b> workers who were <i>"frequently no less egoistic than 
bourgeois exploiters, no less pernicious to the International 
than bourgeois socialists, and no less vain and ridiculous 
than bourgeois nobles."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 108] It is 
comments like this that Marxists quote out of context and 
use for their claims that Bakunin did not see the working 
class as the agent of social change. However, rather than 
refer to the whole working class, Stack quotes Bakunin's 
thoughts in relation to a minority strata within it. Clearly, 
from the context, Bakunin <b>did not</b> mean <b>all</b> working class 
people. 
</p><p>
Also, let us not forget the historical context. After all,
when Bakunin was writing the vast majority of the working 
population across the world was, in fact, illiterate and
disinherited. To get some sort of idea of the numbers of 
working people who would have been classed as <i>"the 
uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable, the 
illiterates"</i> we have to provide some numbers. In Spain, 
for example, <i>"in 1870, something like 60 per cent of the 
population was illiterate."</i> [Gerald Brenan, <b>The Spanish 
Labyrinth</b>, p. 50] In Russia, in 1897 (i.e. 21 years after 
Bakunin's death), <i>"only 21% of the total population of 
European Russia was literate. This was mainly because of 
the appallingly low rate of literacy in the countryside - 
17% compared to 45% in the towns."</i> [S.A. Smith, <b>Red 
Petrograd</b>, p. 34] Stack, in effect, is excluding the 
majority of the working masses from the working class 
movement <b>and</b> the revolution in the 1860-70s by his 
comments. Little wonder Bakunin said what he said. By 
ignoring the historical context (as he ignores the context 
of Bakunin's comments), Stack misleads the reader and 
presents a distinctly distorted picture of Bakunin's 
thought.
</p><p>
In other words, Bakunin's comments on the <i>"flower of the
proletariat"</i> apply to the majority of the working class 
during his lifetime and for a number of decades afterwards
and <b>not</b> to an underclass, not to what Marx termed the 
"lumpenproletariat". As proven above, Bakunin's 
<i>"lumpenproletariat"</i> is not what Marxists mean 
by the term. If Bakunin had meant the same as Marx by the 
"lumpenproletariat" then this would not make sense as the 
"lumpenproletariat" for Marx were not wage workers. This 
can best be seen when Bakunin argues that the International
must organise this <i>"flower of the proletariat"</i> and conduct 
economic collective struggle against the capitalist class. 
In his other works (and in the specific essay these quotes
are derived from) Bakunin stressed the need to organise all 
workers and peasants into unions to fight the state and bosses 
and his arguments that workers associations should not only
be the means to fight capitalism but also the framework of 
an anarchist society. Clearly, Sam Dolgoff's summary of 
Bakunin's ideas on this subject is the correct one:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Bakunin's <b>Lumpenproletariat</b> . . . was broader than 
Marx's, since it included all the submerged classes: unskilled, 
unemployed, and poor workers, poor peasant proprietors, 
landless agricultural labourers, oppressed racial minorities, 
alienated and idealistic youth, declasse intellectuals, and 
'bandits' (by whom Bakunin meant insurrectionary 'Robin Hoods' 
like Pugachev, Stenka Razin, and the Italian Carbonari)."</i> 
[<i>"Introduction"</i>, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, pp. 13-4]
</blockquote></p><p>
Moreover, the issue is clouded by translation issues as well. As Mark Leier 
notes Bakunin <i>"rarely used the word 'lumpenproletariat.' While he does 
use the French word <b>canaille</b>, this is better translated as 'mob' or 
'rabble' . . . When Bakunin does talk about the <b>canaille</b> or rabble, 
he usually refers not to the lumpenproletariat as such but to the poorer 
sections of the working class . . . While we might translate 'destitute 
proletariat' as 'lumpenproletariat,' Bakunin himself . . . is referring to 
a portion of the proletariat and the peasantry, not the lumpenproletariat."</i> 
[<b> Bakunin: The Creative Passion</b>, p. 221] 
</p><p>
Nor is Stack the only Marxist to make such arguments as
regards Bakunin. Paul Thomas quotes Bakunin arguing that the 
working class <i>"remains socialist without knowing it"</i> because 
of <i>"the very force of its position"</i> and <i>"all the conditions 
of its material existence"</i> and then, incredulously, adds that 
<i>"[i]t is for this reason that Bakunin turned away from the 
proletariat and its scientific socialism"</i> towards the 
peasantry. [<b>Karl Marx and the Anarchists</b>, p. 291] A more
distorted account of Bakunin's ideas would be hard to find (and
there is a lot of competition for that particular honour). The
quotes Thomas provides are from Bakunin's <i>"The Policy of the
International"</i> in which he discussed his ideas on how the
International Working-Men's Association should operate (namely
<i>"the collective struggle of the workers against the bosses"</i>). 
At the time (and for some time after) Bakunin called himself 
a revolutionary socialist and argued that by class struggle,
the worker would soon <i>"recognise himself [or herself] to be
a revolutionary socialist, and he [or she] will act like
one."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 103] As such, the argument
that the social position workers are placed makes them 
<i>"socialist without knowing"</i> does not, in fact, imply that
Bakunin thought they would become Marxists (<i>"scientific
socialism"</i>) and, therefore, he turned against them. Rather,
it meant that, for Bakunin, anarchist ideas were a product
of working class life and it was a case of turning instinctive
feelings into conscious thought by collective struggle. As 
noted above, Bakunin did not <i>"turn away"</i> from these ideas nor 
the proletariat. Indeed, Bakunin held to the importance of 
organising the proletariat (along with artisans and peasants)
to the end of his life. Quite simply, Thomas is distorting 
Bakunin's ideas.
</p><p>
Lastly, we have to point out a certain irony (and hypocrisy) in Marxist 
attacks on Bakunin on this subject. This is because Marx, Engels and 
Lenin held similar views on the corrupted <i>"upper strata"</i> of the 
working class as Bakunin did. Indeed, Marxists have a specific term to 
describe this semi-bourgeois strata of workers, namely the <i>"labour 
aristocracy."</i> Marx, for example, talked about the trade unions in 
Britain being <i>"an aristocratic minority"</i> and the <i>"great mass 
of workers . . . has long been outside"</i> them (indeed, <i>"the most 
wretched mass has never belonged."</i>) [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 22, 
p. 614] Engels also talked about <i>"a small, privileged, 'protected' 
minority"</i> within the working class, which he also called <i>"the 
working-class aristocracy."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 27, p. 320 
and p. 321] Lenin approvingly quotes Engels arguing that the 
<i>"English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, 
so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming 
at the possession of . . . a bourgeois proletariat <b>alongside</b> the 
bourgeoisie."</i> [quoted by Lenin, <b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 22, p. 283] 
Like Lenin, Engels explained this by the dominant position of Britain within 
the world market. Indeed, Lenin argued that <i>"a section of the British 
proletariat becomes bourgeois."</i> For Lenin, imperialist <i>"superprofits"</i> 
make it <i>"<b>possible to bribe</b> the labour leaders and the upper stratum 
of the labour aristocracy."</i> This <i>"stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, 
or the labour aristocracy, who are quite philistine in their mode of life, 
in the size of their earnings and in their entire outlook . . . are the real 
<b>agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class</b> movement, the labour 
lieutenants of the capitalist class."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 284 and p. 194]
</p><p>
As can be seen, this is similar to Bakunin's ideas and, ironically enough, nearly 
identical to Stack's distortion of those ideas (particularly in the case of Marx). 
However, only someone with a desire to lie would suggest that any of them dismissed 
the working class as their <i>"agent of change"</i> based on this (selective) quoting. 
Unfortunately, that is what Stack does with Bakunin. Ultimately, Stack's comments 
seem hypocritical in the extreme attacking Bakunin while remaining quiet on the near 
identical comments of his heroes.
</p><p>
It should be noted that this analysis is confirmed by non-anarchists who have
actually studied Bakunin. Wayne Thorpe, an academic who specialises in syndicalism, 
presents an identical summary of Bakunin's ideas on this matter. [<b>"The Workers 
Themselves"</b>, p. 280] Marxist selective quoting not withstanding, for Bakunin (as 
another academic noted) <i>"it seemed self-evident that the revolution, even in 
Eastern Europe, required the unity of peasantry and city workers because of the 
latter's more advanced consciousness."</i> The notion that Bakunin stressed the 
role of the lumpenproletariat is a <i>"popular stereotype"</i> but is one <i>"more 
distorted by its decisive omissions than in what it says."</i> <i>"Marx"</i>, he 
correctly summarised, <i>"accented the revolutionary role of the urban proletariat 
and tended to deprecate the peasantry, while Bakunin, although <b>accepting</b> the 
vanguard role of the proletariat in the revolution, felt that the peasantry, too, 
approached correctly, also had great potential for revolution."</i> [Alvin W. 
Gouldner, <i>"Marx's Last Battle: Bakunin and the First International"</i>, 
pp. 853-884, <b>Theory and Society</b>, Vol. 11, No. 6,  p. 871, p. 869 and 
p. 869] This flowed from Bakunin's materialist politics:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Not restricting the revolution to those societies in which an 
advanced industrialism had produced a massive urban proletariat,
Bakunin observed sensibly that the class composition of the 
revolution was bound to differ in industrially advanced Western
Europe and in Eastern European where the economy was still
largely agricultural . . . This is a far cry, then, from the
Marxist stereotype of Bakunin-the-anarchist who relied exclusively
on the backward peasantry and ignored the proletariat."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 870]
</blockquote></p><p>
All in all, once a historic and textual context is placed on Bakunin's words, it is 
clear which social class was considered as the social revolution's <i>"agents of 
change"</i>: the working class (i.e. wage workers, artisans, peasants and so on).
In this, other revolutionary anarchists follow him. Looking at Kropotkin we find
a similar perspective to Bakunin's. In his first political work, Kropotkin explicitly 
raised the question of <i>"where our activity be directed"</i> and answered it
<i>"categorically"</i> - <i>"unquestionably among the peasantry and urban workers."</i> 
In fact, he <i>"consider[ed] this answer the fundamental position in our practical 
program."</i> This was because <i>"the insurrection must proceed among the peasantry
and urban workers themselves"</i> if it were to succeed. As such, revolutionaries 
<i>"must not stand outside the people but among them, must serve not as a champion 
of some alien opinions worked out in isolation, but only as a more distinct, more
complete expression of the demands of the people themselves."</i> [<b>Selected 
Writings on Anarchism and Revolution</b>, pp. 85-6]
</p><p>
That was in 1873. Nearly 30 years later, Kropotkin expressed identical opinions 
stating that he <i>"did not need to overrate the qualities of the workers in 
order to espouse the cause of the social, predominantly workers' revolution."</i> 
The need was to <i>"forge solidarity"</i> between workers and it was <i>"precisely 
to awaken this solidarity - without which progress would be difficult - that we 
must work to insure that the syndicates and the trade unions not be pushed aside 
by the bourgeois."</i> The social position of the working class people ensured 
their key role in the revolution: <i>"Being exploited today at the bottom of the 
social ladder, it is to his advantage to demand equality. He has never ceased 
demanding it, he has fought for it and will fight for it again, whereas the 
bourgeois . . . thinks it is to his advantage to maintain inequality."</i> 
Unsurprisingly, Kropotkin stressed that <i>"I have always preached active 
participation in the workers' movement, in the <b>revolutionary workers' 
movement</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 299, pp. 299-300, p. 300 and p. 304]
</p><p>
Much the same can be said for the likes of Goldman, Berkman, Malatesta and so 
on - as even a basic familiarity with their writings and activism would confirm. 
Of all the major anarchist thinkers, it could be objected that Murray Bookchin 
fits Stack's distortions. After all, he did attack <i>"The Myth of the 
Proletariat"</i> as the agent of revolutionary change, arguing that <i>"the 
traditional class struggle ceases to have revolutionary implications; it reveals 
itself as the physiology of the prevailing society, not as the labour pains of 
birth."</i> Yet, even here, Bookchin explicitly argued that he made <i>"no 
claims that a social revolution is possible without the participation of the 
industrial proletariat"</i> and noted that he <i>"tries to show how the 
proletariat can be won to the revolutionary movement by stressing issues that 
concern quality of life and work."</i> Thus <i>"class struggle does not centre 
around material exploitation alone"</i> but has a wider understanding which 
cannot be reduced to <i>"a single class defined by its relationship to the 
means of production."</i> Like other anarchists, he saw social change coming 
from the oppressed, as <i>"the alienated and oppressed sectors of society are 
now the <b>majority</b> of the people."</i> In other words, for Bookchin (if 
not other anarchists) expressions like <i>"class struggle"</i> simply <i>"fail 
to encompass the cultural and spiritual revolt that is taking place along with 
the economic struggle."</i> [<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 117, p. 150, 
p. 151 and p. 152] 
</p><p>
So Bookchin's apparent rejection of class struggle and the "proletariat" is not, on 
closer reading, any such thing. He urged a wider form of struggle, one which includes 
issues such as hierarchy, oppression, ecological matters and so on rather than the 
exclusive concern with economic exploitation and class which many radicals (usually 
Marxists) focus on. Somewhat ironically, it should be noted that this "rejection" in 
part flowed from Bookchin's own past in the Stalinist and Trotskyist movements, both 
of which tended to idealise the industrial worker and limit "proletarian" to that 
specific sub-section of the working class. Bookchin himself expressed this blinkered 
perspective when he <i>"dispose[d] of the notion that anyone is a 'proletarian' who 
has nothing to sell but his labour power"</i> as Marx and Engels considered that class 
as <i>"reaching its most advanced form in the <b>industrial</b> proletariat, which 
corresponded to the most advanced form of capital."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 115fn] 
Sadly, Bookchin reinforced this debased notion of working class and our struggle in 
the very process of trying to overcome it. Yet he always argued for a wider concept 
of social struggle which included, but was not limited to, economic class and 
exploitation and, as a result, included all sections of the working class and 
not just workers in large-scale industry. In this he followed a long anarchist
tradition.
</p><p>
To conclude, for anarchists, the social revolution will be made by the working class
(<i>"Anarchists, like Socialists, usually believe in the doctrine of class war."</i>
[Bertrand Russell, <b>Roads to Freedom</b>, p. 38]). However, as British anarchist 
Benjamin Franks summarises, <i>"[b]ecause anarchists hold to a broader view of 
the working class, which includes the lumpenproletariat, they have been accused 
of promoting this section above others. This standard marxist interpretation of 
anarchism is inaccurate; anarchists simply include the lumpenproletariat as part 
of the working class, rather than exclude or exalt it."</i> [<b>Rebel Alliances</b>, 
p. 168] Ultimately, for anyone to claim that Bakunin, for any social anarchist, 
rejects the working class as an agent of social change simply shows their 
ignorance of the politics they are trying to attack.</p>

<a name="sech28"><h2>H.2.8 What is the relationship of anarchism to syndicalism?</h2></a>

<p>
One of the most common Marxist techniques when they discuss
anarchism is to contrast the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin 
to the revolutionary syndicalists. The argument runs along 
the lines that "classical" anarchism is individualistic and 
rejects working class organisation and power while syndicalism 
is a step forward from it (i.e. a step closer to Marxism). 
Sadly, such arguments simply show the ignorance of the author
rather than any form of factual basis. When the ideas of
revolutionary anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin are
compared to revolutionary syndicalism, the similarities are
soon discovered. 
</p><p>
This kind of argument can be found in Pat Stack's essay <i>"Anarchy 
in the UK?"</i> After totally distorting the ideas of anarchists like 
Bakunin and Kropotkin, Stack argues that anarcho-syndicalists 
<i>"tended to look to the spontaneity and anti-statism of anarchism, 
the economic and materialist analysis of Marxism, and the 
organisational tools of trade unionism. Practically every serious 
anarchist organisation came from or leant on this tradition . . . 
The huge advantage they had over other anarchists was their 
understanding of the power of the working class, the centrality 
of the point of production (the workplace) and the need for 
collective action."</i> [<b>Socialist Review</b>, no. 246]
</p><p>
Given that Stack's claims that anarchists reject the <i>"need for
collective action,"</i> do not understand <i>"the power of the working
class"</i> and the <i>"centrality"</i> of the workplace are simply inventions, 
it would suggest that Stack's <i>"huge advantage"</i> does not, in fact, 
exist and is pure nonsense. Bakunin, Kropotkin and all revolutionary 
anarchists, as proven in 
<a href="secH2.html#sech22">section H.2.2</a>, already understood all this 
and based their politics on the need for collective working class 
struggle at the point of production. As such, by contrasting 
anarcho-syndicalism with anarchism (as expressed by the likes of
Bakunin and Kropotkin) Stack simply shows his utter and total
ignorance of his subject matter.
</p><p>
Moreover, if he bothered to read the works of the likes of Bakunin 
and Kropotkin he would discover that many of their ideas were
identical to those of revolutionary syndicalism. For example,
Bakunin argued that the <i>"organisation of the trade sections, 
their federation in the International, and their representation 
by Chambers of Labour, . . . [allow] the workers  . . . [to] 
combin[e] theory and practice . . . [and] bear in themselves 
the living germs of <b>the social order</b>, which is to replace the 
bourgeois world. They are creating not only the ideas but also 
the facts of the future itself."</i> [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, 
<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 50] Like the syndicalists, he argued 
<i>"the natural organisation of the masses . . . is organisation 
based on the various ways that their various types of work 
define their day-to-day life; it is organisation by trade 
association"</i> and once <i>"every occupation . . . is represented
within the International [Working-Men's Association], its
organisation, the organisation of the masses of the people
will be complete."</i> Moreover, Bakunin stressed that the working 
class had <i>"but a single path, that of <b>emancipation through
practical action</b></i> which meant <i>"workers' solidarity in their 
struggle against the bosses"</i> by <i>"<b>trades-unions, organisation, 
and the federation of resistance funds</b>"</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, 
p. 139 and p. 103]
</p><p>
Like the syndicalists, Bakunin stressed working class self-activity
and control over the class struggle:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Toilers count no longer on anyone but yourselves. Do not demoralise
and paralyse your growing strength by being duped into alliances
with bourgeois Radicalism . . . Abstain from all participation in
bourgeois Radicalism and organise outside of it the forces of the
proletariat. The bases of this organisation are already completely
given: they are the workshops and the federation of workshops, the
creation of fighting funds, instruments of struggle against the
bourgeoisie, and their federation, not only national, but
international.
</p><p>
"And when the hour of revolution sounds, you will proclaim the
liquidation of the State and of bourgeois society, anarchy,
that is to say the true, frank people's revolution . . . 
and the new organisation from below upwards and from the
circumference to the centre."</i> [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, 
<b>Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx</b>, pp. 120-1]
</blockquote></p><p>
Like the later syndicalists, Bakunin was in favour of a general strike
as a means of bringing about a social revolution. As <i>"strikes spread 
from one place to another, they come close to turning into a general 
strike. And with the ideas of emancipation that now hold sway over the 
proletariat, a general strike can result only in a great cataclysm which 
forces society to shed its old skin."</i> He raised the possibility that 
this could <i>"arrive before the proletariat is sufficiently organised"</i> 
and dismissed it because the strikes expressed the self-organisation of 
the workers for the <i>"necessities of the struggle impel the workers to 
support one another"</i> and the <i>"more active the struggle becomes . . . 
the stronger and more extensive this federation of proletarians must 
become."</i> Thus strikes <i>"indicate a certain collective strength 
already"</i> and <i>"each strike becomes the point of departure for the 
formation of new groups."</i> He rejected the idea that a revolution 
could be <i>"arbitrarily"</i> made by <i>"the most powerful associations."</i> 
Rather they were produced by <i>"the force of circumstances."</i> As with
the syndicalists, Bakunin argued that not all workers needed to be in
unions before a general strike or revolution could take place. A minority 
(perhaps <i>"one worker in ten")</i> needed to be organised and they would 
influence the rest so ensuring <i>"at critical moments"</i> the majority 
would <i>"follow the International's lead."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, 
pp. 149-50, p. 109 and p. 139]
</p><p>
As with the syndicalists, the new society would be organised <i>"by free 
federation, from below upwards, of workers' associations, industrial as 
well as agricultural . . . in districts and municipalities at first; 
federation of these into regions, of the regions into nations, and the 
nations into a fraternal Internationalism."</i> Moreover, <i>"capital, 
factories, all the means of production and raw material"</i> would be 
owned by <i>"the workers' organisations"</i> while the land would be 
given <i>"to those who work it with their own hands."</i> [quoted by 
Kenafick, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 241 and p. 240] Compare this to the 
syndicalist CGT's 1906 <b>Charter of Amiens</b> which declared <i>"the 
trade union today is an organisation of resistance"</i> but <i>"in the 
future [it will] be the organisation of production and distribution, the
basis of social reorganisation."</i> [quoted by Wayne Thorpe, <b>"The
Workers Themselves"</b>, p. 201]
</p><p>
The similarities with revolutionary syndicalism could not be clearer. Little 
wonder that all serious historians see the obvious similarities between 
anarcho-syndicalism and Bakunin's anarchism. For example, George R. Esenwein's 
(in his study of early Spanish anarchism) comments that syndicalism <i>"had 
deep roots in the Spanish libertarian tradition. It can be traced to Bakunin's 
revolutionary collectivism."</i> He also notes that the class struggle was 
<i>"central to Bakunin's theory."</i> [<b>Anarchist Ideology and the Working 
Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898</b>, p. 209 and p. 20] Caroline Cahm, 
likewise, points to <i>"the basic syndicalist ideas of Bakunin"</i> and 
that he <i>"argued that trade union organisation and activity in the 
International [Working Men's Association] were important in the building 
of working-class power in the struggle against capital . . . He also declared 
that trade union based organisation of the International would not only guide 
the revolution but also provide the basis for the organisation of the society 
of the future."</i> Indeed, he <i>"believed that trade unions had an essential 
part to play in the developing of revolutionary capacities of the workers as 
well as building up the organisation of the masses for revolution."</i> 
[<b>Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism</b>, p. 219, p. 215 
and p. 216] Paul Avrich, in his essay <i>"The Legacy of Bakunin,"</i> agreed. 
<i>"Bakunin,"</i> he stated, <i>"perhaps even more than Proudhon, was a prophet 
of revolutionary syndicalism, who believed that a free federation of trade unions 
would be the 'living germs of a new social order which is to replace the bourgeois 
world.'"</i> [<b>Anarchist Portraits</b>, pp. 14-15] Bertrand Russell noted that 
<i>"[h]ardly any of these ideas [associated with syndicalism] are new: almost 
all are derived from the Bakunist [sic!] section of the old International"</i> 
and that this was <i>"often recognised by Syndicalists themselves."</i> [<b>Roads 
to Freedom</b>, p. 52] The syndicalists, notes Wayne Thorpe, <i>"identified the 
First International with its federalist wing . . . [r]epresented . . . initially 
by the Proudhonists and later and more influentially by the Bakuninists."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 2] 
</p><p>
Needless to say, anarchists agree with this perspective. Arthur Lehning, for 
example, summarises the anarchist perspective when he commented that <i>"Bakunin's 
collectivist anarchism . . . ultimately formed the ideological and theoretical 
basis of anarcho-syndicalism."</i> [<i>"Introduction"</i>, <b>Michael Bakunin: 
Selected Writings</b>, p. 29] Anarchist academic David Berry also notes that 
<i>"anarchist syndicalist were keen to establish a lineage with Bakunin . . . 
the anarchist syndicalism of the turn of the century was a revival of a tactic"</i> 
associated with <i>"the Bakuninist International."</i> [<b>A History of the French 
Anarchist Movement, 1917-1945</b>, p. 17] Another, Mark Leier, points out 
that <i>"the Wobblies drew heavily on anarchist ideas pioneered by Bakunin."</i> 
[<b>Bakunin: The Creative Passion</b>, p. 298] Kropotkin argued that syndicalism 
<i>"is nothing other than the rebirth of the International - federalist, worker, 
Latin."</i> [quoted by Martin A. Miller, <b>Kropotkin</b>, p. 176] Malatesta 
stated in 1907 that he had <i>"never ceased to urge the comrades into that 
direction which the syndicalists, forgetting the past, call <b>new</b>, even 
though it was already glimpsed and followed, in the International, by the 
first of the anarchists."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Reader</b>, p. 221] Little 
wonder that Rudolf Rocker stated in his classic introduction to the subject
that anarcho-syndicalism was <i>"a direct continuation of those social aspirations 
which took shape in the bosom of the First International and which were best 
understood and most strongly held by the libertarian wing of the great workers' 
alliance."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 54] Murray Bookchin just stated 
the obvious: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Long before syndicalism became a popular term in the French labour movement of 
the late [eighteen]nineties, it already existed in the Spanish labour movement of 
the early seventies. The anarchist-influenced Spanish Federation of the old IWMA
was . . . distinctly syndicalist."</i> [<i>"Looking Back at Spain,"</i> 
pp. 53-96, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), <b>The Radical Papers</b>, p. 67]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Perhaps, in the face of such evidence (and the writings of Bakunin himself), 
Marxists could claim that the sources we quote are either anarchists or 
"sympathetic" to anarchism. To counter this is very easy, we need only quote 
Marx and Engels. Marx attacked Bakunin for thinking that the <i>"working 
class . . . must only organise themselves by trades-unions"</i> and <i>"not 
occupy itself with <b>politics.</b>"</i> Engels argued along the same lines, 
having a go at the anarchists because in the <i>"Bakuninist programme a general 
strike is the lever employed by which the social revolution is started"</i> and 
that they admitted <i>"this required a well-formed organisation of the working 
class"</i> (i.e. a trade union federation). Indeed, he summarised Bakunin's 
strategy as being to <i>"organise, and when <b>all</b> the workers, hence the 
majority, are won over, dispose all the authorities, abolish the state and 
replace it with the organisation of the International."</i> [Marx, Engels and 
Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 48, p. 132, p. 133 and 
p. 72] Ignoring the misrepresentations of Marx and Engels about the ideas of 
their enemies, we can state that they got the basic point of Bakunin's ideas 
- the centrality of trade union organisation and struggle as well as the use 
of strikes and the general strike. Therefore, you do not have to read Bakunin 
to find out the similarities between his ideas and syndicalism, you can read 
Marx and Engels. Clearly, most Marxist critiques of anarchism have not even 
done that!
</p><p>
Latter anarchists, needless to say, supported the syndicalist movement and, 
moreover, drew attention to its anarchist roots. Emma Goldman noted that in 
the First International <i>"Bakunin and the Latin workers"</i> forged ahead 
<i>"along industrial and Syndicalist lines"</i> and stated that syndicalism 
<i>"is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism"</i> and that 
<i>"accounts for the presence of so many Anarchists in the Syndicalist 
movement. Like Anarchism, Syndicalism prepares the workers along direct 
economic lines, as conscious factors in the great struggles of to-day, as well
as conscious factors in the task of reconstructing society."</i> After seeing 
syndicalist ideas in action in France in 1900, she <i>"immediately began to 
propagate Syndicalist ideas."</i> The <i>"most powerful weapon"</i> for 
liberation was <i>"the conscious, intelligent, organised, economic protest 
of the masses through direct action and the general strike."</i> [<b>Red Emma 
Speaks</b>, p. 89, p. 91, p. 90 and p. 60]
</p><p>
Kropotkin argued anarchist communism <i>"wins more and more ground among 
those working-men who try to get a clear conception as to the forthcoming 
revolutionary action. The syndicalist and trade union movements, which 
permit the workingmen to realise their solidarity and to feel the community 
of their interests better than any election, prepare the way for these 
conceptions."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 174] His support for anarchist 
participation in the labour movement was strong, considering it a key 
method of preparing for a revolution and spreading anarchist ideas amongst 
the working classes: <i> "The <b>syndicat</b> is absolutely necessary. It 
is the sole force of the workers which continues the direct struggle against 
capital without turning to parliamentarism."</i> [quoted by Miller, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 177]
</p><p>
<i>"Revolutionary Anarchist Communist propaganda within the Labour Unions,"</i> 
Kropotkin stressed, <i>"had always been a favourite mode of action in the 
Federalist or 'Bakuninist' section of the International Working Men's 
Association. In Spain and in Italy it had been especially successful. Now 
it was resorted to, with evident success, in France and <b>Freedom</b> [the 
British Anarchist paper he helped create in 1886] eagerly advocated this sort 
of propaganda."</i> [<b>Act For Yourselves</b>, pp. 119-20] Caroline Cahm notes 
in her excellent account of Kropotkin's ideas between 1872 and 1886, he <i>"was 
anxious to revive the International as an organisation for aggressive strike 
action to counteract the influence of parliamentary socialists on the labour 
movement."</i> This resulted in Kropotkin advocating a <i>"remarkable fusion 
of anarchist communist ideas with both the bakuninist [sic!] internationalist 
views adopted by the Spanish Federation and the syndicalist ideas developed 
in the Jura Federation in the 1870s."</i> This included seeing the importance 
of revolutionary labour unions, the value of the strikes as a mode of direct 
action and syndicalist action developing solidarity. <i>"For Kropotkin,"</i> 
she summarises, <i>"revolutionary syndicalism represented a revival of the 
great movement of the Anti-authoritarian International . . . It seems likely 
that he saw in it the [strikers International] which he had advocated 
earlier."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 257 and p. 268]
</p><p>
Clearly, any one claiming that there is a fundamental difference
between anarchism and syndicalism is talking nonsense. Syndicalist
ideas were being argued by the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin
before syndicalism emerged in the French CGT in the 1890s as
a clearly labelled revolutionary theory. Rather than being in 
conflict, the ideas of syndicalism find their roots in the ideas 
of Bakunin and "classical" anarchism. This would be quickly seen 
if the actual writings of Bakunin and Kropotkin were consulted. 
There <b>are,</b> of course, differences between anarchism and 
syndicalism, but they are <b>not</b> those usually listed by
Marxists (<a href="secJ3.html#secj39">section J.3.9</a> discusses 
these differences and, as will quickly be discovered, they are <b>not</b> 
based on a rejection of working class organisation, direct action, solidarity 
and collective struggle!).
</p><p>
Ultimately, claims like Pat Stack's simply show how unfamiliar 
the author is with the ideas they are pathetically attempting to 
critique. Anarchists from Bakunin onwards shared most of the
same ideas as syndicalism (which is unsurprising as most of the
ideas of anarcho-syndicalism have direct roots in the ideas
of Bakunin). In other words, for Stack, the <i>"huge advantage"</i> 
anarcho-syndicalists have <i>"over other anarchists"</i> is that they,
in fact, share the same <i>"understanding of the power of the 
working class, the centrality of the point of production (the 
workplace) and the need for collective action"</i>! This, in itself,
shows the bankruptcy of Stack's claims and those like it.</p>

<a name="sech29"><H2>H.2.9 Do anarchists have <i>"liberal"</i> politics?</h2></a>

<p>
Another assertion by Marxists is that anarchists have <i>"liberal"</i> 
politics or ideas. For example, one Marxist argues that the <i>"programme 
with which Bakunin armed his super-revolutionary vanguard called for the 
'political, economic and social equalisation of classes and individuals 
of both sexes, beginning with the abolition of the right of inheritance.' 
This is <b>liberal</b> politics, implying nothing about the abolition of 
capitalism."</i> [Derek Howl, <i>"The Legacy of Hal Draper,"</i> pp. 137-49,
<b>International Socialism</b>, no. 52, p. 148] 
</p><p>
That Howl is totally distorting Bakunin's ideas can quickly be seen by 
looking at the whole of the programme. The passage quoted is from 
item 2 of the <i>"Programme of the Alliance."</i> Strangely Howle 
fails to quote the end of that item, namely when it states this 
<i>"equalisation"</i> was <i>"in pursuance of the decision reached 
by the last working men's Congress in Brussels, the land, the instruments 
of work and all other capital may become the collective property of the 
whole of society and be utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations."</i> If this was not enough to 
indicate the abolition of capitalism, item 4 states that the Alliance 
<i>"repudiates all political action whose target is anything except the 
triumph of the workers' cause over Capital."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: 
Selected Writings</b>, p. 174] 
</p><p>
Howl's dishonesty is clear. Bakunin <b>explicitly</b> argued for the 
abolition of capitalism in the same item Howl (selectively) quotes from. 
If the socialisation of land and capital under the control of workers' 
associations is not the abolition of capitalism, we wonder what is!
</p><p>
Equally as dishonest as this quoting out of context is Howl's non-mention 
of the history of the expression <i>"political, economic and social 
equalisation of classes and individuals of both sexes."</i> After Bakunin 
sent the Alliance programme to the General Council of the <b>International 
Workingmen's  Association</b>, he received a letter date March 9, 1869 
from Marx which stated that the term <i>"the equalisation of classes"</i> 
<i>"literally interpreted"</i> would mean <i>"harmony of capital and 
labour"</i> as <i>"persistently preached by the bourgeois socialists."</i>
The letter argued that it was <i>"not the logically impossible 'equalisation 
of classes', but the historically necessary, superseding 'abolition of classes'"</i> 
which was the <i>"true secret of the proletarian movement"</i> and which <i>"forms 
the great aim of the International Working Men's Association."</i> Significantly, 
the letter adds the following:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Considering, however, the context in which that phrase 'equalisation of 
classes' occurs, it seems to be a mere slip of the pen, and the General 
Council feels confident that you will be anxious to remove from your program 
an expression which offers such a dangerous misunderstanding."</i>
[<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 21, p. 46]
</blockquote></p><p>
And, given the context, Marx was right. The phrase <i>"equalisation of 
classes"</i> placed in the context of the political, economic and social 
equalisation of individuals obviously implies the abolition of classes. 
The logic is simple. If both worker and capitalist shared the same economic 
and social position then wage labour would not exist (in fact, it would be 
impossible as it is based on social and economic <b>inequality</b>) and so 
class society would not exist. Similarly, if the tenant and the landlord 
were socially equal then the landlord would have no power over the tenant, 
which would be impossible. Bakunin agreed with Marx on the ambiguity of the 
term and the Alliance changed its Programme to call for <i>"the final and 
total abolition of classes and the political, economic and social equalisation 
of individuals of either sex."</i> [Bakunin, <b>Op. Cit.</b> p. 174] This 
change ensured the admittance of the Alliance sections into the International 
Workingmen's Association (although this did not stop Marx, like his followers, 
bringing up this <i>"mere slip of the pen"</i> years later). However, Howl 
repeating the changed phrase <i>"equalisation of classes"</i> out of context 
helps discredit anarchism and so it is done.
</p><p>
Simply put, anarchists are <b>not</b> liberals. We are well aware of
the fact that without equality, liberty is impossible except for
the rich. As Nicolas Walter put it, <i>"[l]ike liberals, anarchists
want freedom; like socialists, anarchists want equality. But we
are not satisfied by liberalism alone or by socialism alone.
Freedom without equality means that the poor and weak are less
free than the rich and strong, and equality without freedom means
that we are all slaves together. Freedom and equality are not
contradictory, but complementary; in place of the old polarisation
of freedom versus equality - according to which we are told that
more freedom equals less equality, and more equality equals
less freedom - anarchists point out that in practice you cannot
have one without the other. Freedom is not genuine if some people
are too poor or too weak to enjoy it, and equality is not genuine
is some people are ruled by others."</i> [<b>About Anarchism</b>, p. 29]
Clearly, anarchists do <b>not</b> have liberal politics. Quite the
reverse, as we subject it to extensive critique from a working
class perspective.
</p><p>
To the claim that anarchism <i>"combines a socialist critique of 
capitalism with a liberal critique of socialism,"</i> anarchists reply
that it is mistaken. [Paul Thomas, <b>Karl Marx and the Anarchists</b>,
p. 7] Rather, anarchism is simply a socialist critique of both
capitalism and the state. Freedom under capitalism is fatally
undermined by inequality - it simply becomes the freedom to pick a 
master. This violates liberty and equality, as does the state. <i>"Any 
State at all,"</i> argued Bakunin, <i>"no matter what kind, is a 
domination and exploitation. It is a negation of Socialism, which 
wants an equitable human society delivered from all tutelage, from 
all authority and political domination as well as economic exploitation."</i> 
[quoted by Kenafick, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 95-6] As such, state structures 
violate not only liberty but also equality. There is no real equality in 
power between, say, the head of the government and one of the millions who 
may, or may not, have voted for them. As the Russian Revolution proved, 
there can be no meaningful equality between a striking worker and the 
"socialist" political police sent to impose the will of the state, i.e.,
the "socialist" ruling elite.
</p><p>
This means that if anarchists are concerned about freedom (both 
individual <b>and</b> collective) it is not because we are influenced
by liberalism. Quite the reverse, as liberalism happily tolerates
hierarchy and the restrictions of liberty implied by private
property, wage labour and the state. As Bakunin argued, capitalism
turns <i>"the worker into a subordinate, a passive and obedient
servant."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 188] So
anarchism rejects liberalism (although, as Bakunin put it, <i>"[i]f
socialism disputes radicalism, this is hardly to reverse it but
rather to advance it."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 87]). Therefore,
anarchism rejects liberalism, not because it supports the idea of freedom, 
but precisely because it does not go far enough and fails to understand 
that without equality, freedom is little more than freedom for the master. 
In fact, as we argue in <a href="secH4.html">section H.4</a>, it is
Marxism itself which has a distinctly liberal perspective of freedom,
seeing it restricted by association rather than association being an
expression of it.
</p><p>
Lastly, a few words on the mentality that could suggest that anarchist
concern for liberty means that it is a form of liberalism. Rather
than suggest the bankruptcy of anarchism it, in fact, suggests the
bankruptcy of the politics of the person making the accusation.
After all, the clear implication is that a concern with individual,
collective and social freedom is alien to socialist ideas. It also
strikes at the heart of socialism - its concern for equality -
as it clearly implies that some have more power (namely the right
to suppress the liberty of others) than the rest. As such, it
suggests a superficial understanding of <b>real</b> socialism (see
also our discussion of Marxist claims about anarchist "elitism"
in <a href="secH2.html#sech211">section H.2.11</a>). 
</p><p>
To argue that a concern for freedom means <i>"liberalism"</i> (or, 
equally, <i>"individualism"</i>) indicates that the person is not a 
socialist. After all, a concern that every individual controls their 
daily lives (i.e. to be free) means a wholehearted support for collective 
self-management of group affairs. It means a vision of a revolution (and 
post-revolutionary society) based on direct working class participation 
and management of society from below upwards. To dismiss this vision by 
dismissing the principles which inspire it as <i>"liberalism"</i> means 
to support rule from above by the "enlightened" elite (i.e. the party) 
and the hierarchical state structures. It means arguing for <b>party</b> 
power, not <b>class</b> power, as liberty is seen as a <b>danger</b> to 
the revolution and so the people must be protected against the 
"petty-bourgeois"/"reactionary" narrowness of the people (to requote 
Bakunin, <i>"every state, even the pseudo-People's State concocted by 
Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above, 
through a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals who imagine 
that they know what the people need and want better than do the people 
themselves."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 338]). Rather 
than seeing free debate of ideas and mass participation as a source of 
strength, it sees it as a source of "bad influences" which the masses 
must be protected from. 
</p><p>
Moreover, it suggests a total lack of understanding of the difficulties 
that a social revolution will face. Unless it is based on the active
participation of the majority of a population, any revolution will
fail. The construction of socialism, of a new society, will face
thousands of unexpected problems and seek to meet the needs of
millions of individuals, thousands of communities and hundreds of
cultures. Without the individuals and groups within that society 
being in a position to freely contribute to that constructive task, 
it will simply wither under the bureaucratic and authoritarian
rule of a few party leaders. As such, individual liberties are an
essential aspect of <b>genuine</b> social reconstruction - without
freedom of association, assembly, organisation, speech and so on,
the active participation of the masses will be replaced by an
isolated and atomised collective of individuals subjected to 
autocratic rule from above. 
</p><p>
As ex-anarchist turned Bolshevik Victor Serge concluded in the late 1930s
(when it was far too late) the <i>"fear of liberty, which is the fear of 
the masses, marks almost the entire course of the Russian Revolution. If 
it is possible to discover a major lesson, capable of revitalising Marxism 
. . . one might formulate it in these terms: Socialism is essentially 
democratic -- the word, 'democratic', being used here in its libertarian
sense."</i> [<b>The Serge-Trotsky Papers</b>, p. 181]
</p><p>
Ultimately, as Rudolf Rocker suggested, the <i>"urge for social justice
can only develop properly and be effective, when it grows out of
man's sense of personal freedom and it based on that. In other
words <b>Socialism will be free, or it will not be at all.</b> In its
recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification
for the existence of Anarchism."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 14]
</p>

<a name="sech210"><h2>H.2.10 Are anarchists against leadership?</h2></a>

<p>
It is a common assertion by Marxists that anarchists reject
the idea of <i>"leadership"</i> and so think in terms of a totally
spontaneous revolution. This is also generally understood to
imply that anarchists do not see the need for revolutionaries
to organise together to influence the class struggle in the
here and now. Hence the British SWP's Duncan Hallas:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"That an organisation of socialist militants is necessary
is common ground on the left, a few anarchist purists
apart. But what kind of organisation? One view, widespread
amongst newly radicalised students and young workers, is
that of the libertarians . . . [They have] hostility to
centralised, co-ordinated activity and profound suspicion
of anything smacking of 'leadership.' On this view nothing
more than a loose federation of working groups is necessary
or desirable. The underlying assumptions are that centralised
organisations inevitably undergo bureaucratic degeneration
and that the spontaneous activities of working people are
the sole and sufficient basis for the achievement of 
socialism . . . some libertarians draw the conclusion that
a revolutionary socialist party is a contradiction in terms.
This, of course, is the traditional anarcho-syndicalist
position."</i> [<b>Towards a revolutionary socialist party</b>, 
p. 39]
</blockquote></p><p>
Ignoring the usual patronising references to the age and
experience of non-Leninists, this argument can be faulted
on many levels. Firstly, while libertarians do reject 
centralised structures, it does <b>not</b> mean we reject 
co-ordinated activity. This may be a common Marxist 
argument, but it is a straw man one. Secondly, anarchists
do <b>not</b> reject the idea of <i>"leadership."</i> We simply 
reject the idea of hierarchical leadership. Thirdly, while all
anarchists do think that a <i>"revolutionary socialist party"</i>
is a contradiction in terms, it does not mean that we
reject the need for revolutionary organisations (i.e.
organisations of anarchists). While opposing centralised
and hierarchical political parties, anarchists have long
saw the need for anarchist groups and federations to discuss
and spread our ideas and influence. We will discuss each issue
in turn.
</p><p>
The first argument is the least important. For Marxists, 
co-ordination equals centralism and to reject centralisation
means to reject co-ordination of joint activity. For anarchists,
co-ordination does not each centralism or centralisation. This
is why anarchism stresses federation and federalism as the means
of co-ordinating joint activity. Under a centralised system,
the affairs of all are handed over to a handful of people at
the centre. Their decisions are then binding on the mass of
the members of the organisation whose position is simply that 
of executing the orders of those whom the majority elect. This
means that power rests at the top and decisions flow from the
top downwards. As such, the "revolutionary" party simply mimics 
the very society it claims to oppose (see <a href="secH5.html#sech56">
section H.5.6</a>) as well as being extremely ineffective
(see <a href="secH5.html#sech58">section H.5.8</a>)
</p><p>
In a federal structure, in contrast, decisions flow from the
bottom up by means of councils of elected, mandated and 
recallable <b>delegates</b>. In fact, we discover anarchists 
like Bakunin and Proudhon arguing for elected, mandated and 
recallable delegates rather than for representatives in 
their ideas of how a free society worked years before the 
Paris Commune applied them in practice. The federal structure 
exists to ensure that any co-ordinated activity accurately 
reflects the decisions of the membership. As such, anarchists 
<i>"do not deny the need for co-ordination between groups, for 
discipline, for meticulous planning, and for unity in action. 
But they believe that co-ordination, discipline, planning, and 
unity in action must be achieved <b>voluntarily,</b> by means 
of a self-discipline nourished by conviction and understanding, 
not by coercion and a mindless, unquestioning obedience to orders 
from above."</i> This means we <i>"vigorously oppose the
establishment of an organisational structure that becomes an end
in itself, of committees that linger on after their practical 
tasks have been completed, of a 'leadership' that reduces the
'revolutionary' to a mindless robot."</i> [Murray Bookchin, 
<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 139] In other words, co-ordination
comes <b><i>from below</i></b> rather than being imposed from above 
by a few leaders. To use an analogy, federalist co-ordination is the
co-ordination created in a strike by workers resisting their
bosses. It is created by debate amongst equals and flows from
below upwards. Centralised co-ordination is the co-ordination
imposed from the top-down by the boss. 
</p><p>
Secondly, anarchists are not against all forms of <i>"leadership."</i>
We are against hierarchical and institutionalised forms of leadership. 
In other words, of giving <b>power</b> to leaders. This is the key 
difference, as Albert Meltzer explained. <i>"In any grouping some people,"</i> 
he argued, <i>"do naturally 'give a lead.' But this should not mean they are 
a class apart. What they always reject is institutionalised leadership. That
means their supporters become blind followers and the leadership not one of
example or originality but of unthinking acceptance."</i> Any revolutionary 
in a factory where the majority have no revolutionary experience, will at 
times, "give a lead." However, <i>"no real Anarchist . . . would agree to
be part of an <b>institutionalised leadership.</b> Neither would an Anarchist
wait for a lead, but give one."</i> [<b>Anarchism: Arguments for and 
against</b>, p. 58 and p. 59] 
</p><p>
This means, as we argue in 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>, that anarchists seek
to influence the class struggle as <b>equals.</b> Rather than aim
for positions of power, anarchists want to influence people
by the power of their ideas as expressed in the debates that
occur in the organisations created in the social struggle 
itself. This is because anarchists recognise that there is
an unevenness in the level of ideas within the working class.
This fact is obvious. Some workers accept the logic of the
current system, others are critical of certain aspects,
others (usually a minority) are consciously seeking a better
society (and are anarchists, ecologists, Marxists, etc.)
and so on. Only constant discussion, the clash of ideas, 
combined with collective struggle can develop political awareness
and narrow the unevenness of ideas within the oppressed. As Malatesta 
argued, <i>"[o]nly freedom or the struggle for freedom can be 
the school for freedom."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and 
Ideas</b>, p. 59]
</p><p>
From this perspective, it follows that any attempt to create
an institutionalised leadership structure means the end of
the revolutionary process. Such "leadership" automatically
means a hierarchical structure, one in which the leaders 
have power and make the decisions for the rest. This just
reproduces the old class division of labour between those
who think and those who act (i.e. between order givers
and order takers). Rather than the revolutionary masses
taking power in such a system, it is the "leaders" (i.e.
a specific party hierarchy) who do so and the masses role
becomes, yet again, simply that of selecting which boss
tells them what to do.
</p><p>
So the anarchist federation does not reject the need of 
"leadership" in the sense of giving a led, of arguing
its ideas and trying to win people to them. It does reject the 
idea that "leadership" should become separated from the
mass of the people. Simply put, no party, no group of leaders
have all the answers and so the active participation of all is 
required for a successful revolution. It is not a question of 
organisation versus non-organisation, or "leadership" versus 
non-"leadership" but rather what <b><i>kind</i></b> of organisation 
and the <b><i>kind</i></b> of leadership.
</p><p>
Clearly, then, anarchists do not reject or dismiss the
importance of politically aware minorities organising
and spreading their ideas within social struggles. As 
Caroline Cahm summarised in her excellent study of 
Kropotkin's thought, <i>"Kropotkin stressed the role 
of heroic minorities in the preparation for revolution."</i> 
[<b>Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, 
1872-86</b>, p. 276] Yet, as John Crump correctly argued, 
the <i>"key words here are <b>in the preparation for
revolution.</b> By their courage and daring in opposing 
capitalism and the state, anarchist minorities could
teach by example and thereby draw increasing numbers into
the struggle. But Kropotkin was not advocating substitutionism;
the idea that a minority might carry out the revolution in
place of the people was as alien to him as the notion that
a minority would exercise rule after the revolution. In
fact, Kropotkin recognised that the former would be a
prescription for the latter."</i> [<b>Hatta Shuzo and Pure
Anarchism in Interwar Japan</b>, p. 9] In Kropotkin's own
words:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The idea of anarchist communism, today represented by
feeble minorities, but increasingly finding popular
expression, will make its way among the mass of the
people. Spreading everywhere, the anarchist groups
. . . will take strength from the support they find
among the people, and will raise the red flag of the
revolution . . . On that day, what is now the minority
will become the People, the great mass, and that mass
rising against property and the State, will march
forward towards anarchist communism."</i> [<b>Words of a
Rebel</b>, p. 75]
</blockquote></p><p>
This influence would be gained simply by the correctness of
our ideas and the validity of our suggestions. This means
that anarchists seek influence <i>"through advice and example,
leaving the people . . .  to adopt our methods and solutions
if these are, or seem to be, better than those suggested and
carried out by others."</i> As such, any anarchist organisation 
would <i>"strive acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw 
the [revolutionary] movement towards the realisation of our
ideas. But such influence must be won by doing more and
better than others, and will be useful if won in that way."</i>
This means rejecting <i>"taking over command, that is by becoming
a government and imposing one's own ideas and interests
through police methods."</i> [Malatesta, <b>The Anarchist 
Revolution</b>, pp. 108-9]
</p><p>
Moreover, unlike leading Marxists like Lenin and Karl Kautsky, 
anarchists think that socialist ideas are developed <b>within</b> 
the class struggle rather than outside it by the radical 
intelligentsia (see <a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>).
Kropotkin argued that  <i>"modern socialism has emerged out 
of the depths of the people's consciousness. If a few thinkers 
emerging from the bourgeoisie have given it the approval of 
science and the support of philosophy, the basis of the idea 
which they have given their own expression has nonetheless been 
the product of the collective spirit of the working people. The 
rational socialism of the International is still today our greatest
strength, and it was elaborated in working class organisation,
under the first influence of the masses. The few writers who
offered their help in the work of elaborating socialist
ideas have merely been giving form to the aspirations that
first saw their light among the workers."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 59] In other words, anarchists are a part of the working
class (either by birth or by rejecting their previous class
background and becoming part of it), the part which has 
generalised its own experiences, ideas and needs into a 
theory called <i>"anarchism"</i> and seeks to convince the rest 
of the validity of its ideas and tactics. This would 
be a dialogue, based on both learning <b>and</b> teaching.
</p><p>
As such, this means that the relationship between the 
specifically anarchist groups and oppressed peoples in
struggle is a two way one. As well as trying to influence the
social struggle, anarchists also try and learn from the class
struggle and try to generalise from the experiences of their 
own struggles and the struggles of other working class people. 
Rather than seeing the anarchist group as some sort of teacher, 
anarchists see it as simply part of the social struggle and
its ideas can and must develop from active participation 
within that struggle. As anarchists agree with Bakunin
and reject the idea that their organisations should take
power on behalf of the masses, it is clear that such groups
are not imposing alien ideas upon people but rather try to
clarify the ideas generated by working class people in struggle.
It is an objective fact that there is a great difference in
the political awareness within the masses of oppressed people.
This uneven development means that they do not accept, all at 
once or in their totality, revolutionary ideas. There are layers. 
Groups of people, by ones and twos and then in larger numbers, 
become interested, read literature, talk with others, and create
new ideas. The first groups that explicitly call their ideas 
<i>"anarchism"</i> have the right and duty to try to persuade others 
to join them. This is not opposed to the self-organisation of 
the working class, rather it is how working class people self-organise.
</p><p>
Lastly, most anarchists recognise the need to create specifically 
anarchist organisations to spread anarchist ideas and influence the 
class struggle. Suffice to say, the idea that anarchists reject this 
need to organise politically in order to achieve a revolution is not 
to be found in the theory and practice of all the major anarchist 
thinkers nor in the history and current practice of the anarchist 
movement itself. As Leninists themselves, at times, admit. Ultimately, 
if spontaneity was enough to create (and ensure the success of) a 
social revolution then we would be living in a libertarian socialist 
society. The fact that we are not suggests that spontaneity, however 
important, is not enough in itself. This simple fact of history is 
understood by anarchists and we organise ourselves appropriately.
</p><p>
See <a href="secJ3.html">section J.3</a> for more details on what 
organisations anarchists create and their role in anarchist revolutionary 
theory (<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">Section J.3.6</a>, for example, has 
a fuller discussion of the role of anarchist groups in the class struggle). 
For a discussion of the role of anarchists in a revolution, see 
<a href="secJ7.html#secj75">section J.7.5</a>. 
</p>

<a name="sech211"><h2>H.2.11 Are anarchists <i>"anti-democratic"</i>?</h2></a>

<p>
One of the common arguments against anarchism is that it is
<i>"anti-democratic"</i> (or <i>"elitist"</i>). For example, a member
of the British <b>Socialist Workers Party</b> denounces anarchism 
for being <i>"necessarily deeply anti-democratic"</i> due to its 
<i>"thesis of the absolute sovereignty of the individual ego as 
against the imposition of <b>any</b> 'authority' over it,"</i> 
which, its is claimed, is the <i>"distinctly anarchist concept."</i> 
This position is an <i>"idealist conception"</i> in which <i>"<b>any</b> 
authority is seen as despotic; 'freedom' and 'authority' (and therefore 
'freedom' and 'democracy') are opposites. This presumption of opposition 
to 'authority' was fostered by liberalism."</i> This is contrasted with 
the Marxist <i>"materialist understanding of society"</i> in which it 
<i>"was clear that 'authority' is necessary in <b>any</b> society where 
labour is collaborative."</i> [Derek Howl, <i>"The Legacy of Hal 
Draper,"</i> pp. 137-49, <b>International Socialism</b>, no. 52, 
p. 145] Hal Draper is quoted arguing that:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>By the 'principle of authority' the consistent anarchist means 
principled opposition to any exercise of authority, including opposition 
to authority derived from the most complete democracy and exercised in 
completely democratic fashion . . . Of all ideologies, anarchism is the 
one most fundamentally anti-democratic in principle, since it is not only 
unalterably hostile to democracy in general but particularly to any socialist 
democracy of the most ideal kind that could be imagined."</i>
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Such as argument is, of course, just ridiculous. Indeed, it is flawed on so 
many levels its hard to know where to start. The obvious place is the claim 
that anarchism is the most <i>"fundamentally anti-democratic in principle."</i> 
Now, given that there are fascists, monarchists, supporters (like Trotsky) of 
<i>"party dictatorship"</i> and a host of others who advocate minority rule 
(even by one person) over everyone else, can it be argued with a straight 
face that anarchism is the most <i>"anti-democratic"</i> because it argues 
for the liberty of all? Is the idea and practice of absolute monarchy and
fascism <b>really</b> more democratic than anarchism? Clearly not, although 
this does indicate the quality of this kind of argument. Equally, the 
notion that liberalism rests on a <i>"presumption of opposition to 
'authority'"</i> cannot be supported by even a casual understanding of
the subject. That ideology has always sought ways to justify the authority
structures of the liberal state not to mention  the hierarchies produced by
capitalist private property. So the notion that liberalism is against "authority" 
is hard to square with both its theory and reality.
</p><p>
Another obvious point is that anarchists do not see <b>any</b> authority 
as <i>"despotic."</i> As we discuss in <a href="secH4.html">section H.4</a>, 
this common Marxist assertion is simply not true. Anarchists have always been 
very clear on the fact they reject specific kinds of authority and not 
<i>"authority"</i> as such. In fact, by the term <i>"principal of authority,"</i> 
Bakunin meant <b>hierarchical</b> authority, and not all forms of <i>"authority"</i>. 
This explains why Kropotkin argued that <i>"the origin of the anarchist conception 
of society"</i> lies in <i>"the criticism"</i> of the <i>"hierarchical organisations 
and the authoritarian conceptions of society"</i> and stressed that anarchism 
<i>"refuses all hierarchical organisation."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 158 and 
p. 137]
</p><p>
This means, just to state the obvious, that making and sticking by collective 
decisions are <b>not</b> acts of authority. Rather 
they simply expressions of individual autonomy. Clearly in most 
activities there is a need to co-operate with other people. 
Indeed, <b>living</b> involves the <i>"absolute sovereignty of the 
individual ego"</i> (as if anarchists like Bakunin used such terms!)
being <i>"restricted"</i> by exercising that <i>"sovereignty."</i> Take, for
example, playing football. This involves finding others who seek
to play the game, organising into teams, agreeing on rules and so
on. All terrible violations of the <i>"absolute sovereignty of the 
individual ego,"</i> yet it was precisely the <i>"sovereignty"</i> of the
<i>"individual"</i> which produced the desire to play the game in the
first place. What sort of <i>"sovereignty"</i> is it that negates itself
when it is exercised? Clearly, then, the Marxist "summary" of 
anarchist ideas on this matter, like of many others, is poverty 
stricken.
</p><p>
And, unsurprisingly enough, we find anarchist thinkers like Bakunin
and Kropotkin attacking this idea of <i>"the absolute sovereignty 
of the individual ego"</i> in the most severe terms. Indeed, they
thought was a bourgeois theory which simply existed to justify
the continued domination and exploitation of working class 
people by the ruling class. Kropotkin quite clearly recognised
its anti-individual and unfree nature by labelling it <i>"the 
authoritarian individualism which stifles us"</i> and stressing its
<i>"narrow-minded, and therefore foolish"</i> nature. [<b>Conquest of
Bread</b>, p. 130] Similarly, it would do the Marxist argument little
good if they quoted Bakunin arguing that the <i>"freedom of 
individuals is by no means an individual matter. It is a 
collective matter, a collective product. No individual can 
be free outside of human society or without its co-operation"</i>
or that he considered <i>"individualism"</i> as a <i>"bourgeois
principle."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 46 and p. 57] He had
nothing but contempt for, as he put it, <i>"that individualistic,
egotistical, malicious and illusory freedom"</i> which was 
<i>"extolled"</i> by all the <i>"schools of bourgeois liberalism."</i>
[<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 196]
</p><p>
Perhaps, of course, these two famous anarchists were not, in fact, 
<i>"consistent"</i> anarchists, but that claim is doubtful. 
</p><p>
The notion that anarchism is inherently an extreme form of "individualism"
seems to be the great assumption of Marxism. Hence the continual repetition
of this "fact" and the continual attempt to link revolutionary anarchism
with Stirner's ideas (the only anarchist to stress the importance of the
<i>"ego"</i>). Thus we find Engels talking about <i>"Stirner, the 
great prophet of contemporary anarchism - Bakunin has taken a great deal 
from him . . . Bakunin blended [Stirner] with Proudhon and labelled the 
blend 'anarchism'"</i> For Marx, <i>"Bakunin has merely translated Proudhon's 
and Stirner's anarchy into the crude language of the Tartars."</i> [Marx, 
Engels and Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 175 and p. 153]
In reality, of course, Stirner was essentially unknown to the anarchist movement 
until his book was rediscovered in the late nineteenth century and even then his 
impact was limited. In terms of Bakunin, while his debt to Proudhon is well
known and obvious, the link with Stirner seems to have existed only in the heads
of Marx and Engels. As Mark Leier notes, <i>"there is no evidence of this . . . 
Bakunin mentions Stirner precisely once in his collected works, and then only 
in passing . . . as far as can be determined, Bakunin had no interest, even a 
negative one, in Stirner's ideas."</i> [<b>Bakunin: The Creative Passion</b>, 
p. 97] Nor was Proudhon influenced by Stirner (it is doubtful he even knew of
him) while Stirner criticised the French anarchist. Does that mean Stirner is
the only "consistent" anarchist? Moreover, even in terms of Stirner, Marxist 
diatribes about the <i>"absolute sovereignty of the individual ego"</i> fail
to note that the egoist himself advocated organisation (<i>"the union of egos"</i>)
and was well aware that it required agreements between individuals which, in
the abstract, reduced "liberty" (the union <i>"offer[s] a greater measure of 
liberty"</i> while containing a lesser amount of <i>"unfreedom"</i> [<b>The 
Ego and Its Own</b>, p. 308]).
</p><p>
Anarchism does, of course, derive from the Greek for <i>"without 
authority"</i> or <i>"without rulers"</i> and this, unsurprisingly, 
informs anarchist theory and visions of a better world. This means that 
anarchism is against the <i>"domination of man by man"</i> (and woman 
by woman, woman by man, and so on). However, <i>"[a]s knowledge 
has penetrated the governed masses . . . the people have 
revolted against the form of authority then felt most intolerable. 
This spirit of revolt in the individual and the masses, is the 
natural and necessary fruit of the spirit of domination; the 
vindication of human dignity, and the saviour of social life."</i> 
Thus <i>"freedom is the necessary preliminary to any true and 
equal human association."</i> [Charlotte Wilson, <b>Anarchist 
Essays</b>, p. 54 and p. 40] In other words, anarchism comes 
from the struggle of the oppressed against their rulers and is an 
expression of individual and social freedom. Anarchism was 
born from the class struggle.
</p><p>
Taking individual liberty as a good thing, the next question is
how do free individuals co-operate together in such a way as
to ensure their continued liberty (<i>"The belief in freedom 
assumes that human beings can co-operate."</i> [Emma Goldman,
<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 442]). This suggests that any 
association must be one of equality between the associating
individuals. This can only be done when everyone involved takes
a meaningful role in the decision making process and because of
this anarchists stress the need for <b>self-government</b> (usually 
called <i><b>self-management</b></i>) of both individuals and groups. 
Self-management within free associations and decision making 
from the bottom-up is the only way domination can be eliminated. 
This is because, by making our own decisions ourselves, we 
automatically end the division of society into governors and 
governed (i.e. end hierarchy). As Anarchism clearly means 
support for freedom and equality, it automatically implies 
opposition to all forms of hierarchical organisation and 
authoritarian social relationship. This means that anarchist
support for individual liberty does not end, as many Marxists 
assert, in the denial of organisation or collective decision
making but rather in support for <b>self-managed</b> groups. 
Only this form of organisation can end the division of society 
into rulers and ruled, oppressor and oppressed, exploiter and 
exploited and create an environment in which individuals can 
associate without denying their freedom and equality.
</p><p>
Therefore, the <b>positive</b> side of anarchism (which naturally 
flows from its opposition to authority) results in a political 
theory which argues that people must control their own struggles,
organisations and affairs directly. This means we support mass 
assemblies and their federation via councils of mandated delegates 
subject to recall if they break their mandates (i.e. they act as 
they see fit, i.e. as politicians or bureaucrats, and not as the 
people who elected them desire). This way people directly govern 
themselves and control their own lives, allowing those affected by 
a decision to have a say in it and so they manage their own affairs 
directly and without hierarchy. Rather than imply an "individualism"</i> 
which denies the importance of association and the freedom it can 
generate, anarchism implies an opposition to hierarchy in all its 
forms and the support free association of equals. In other words, 
anarchism can generally be taken to mean support for self-government 
or self-management, both by individuals and by groups. 
</p><p>
In summary, anarchist support for individual liberty incurs a
similar support for self-managed groups. In such groups, individuals
co-operate as equals to maximise their liberty. This means, for 
anarchists, Marxists are just confusing co-operation with coercion, 
agreement with authority, association with subordination. Thus the
Marxist <i>"materialist"</i> concept of authority distorts the anarchist 
position and, secondly, is supra-historical in the extreme. 
Different forms of decision making are lumped together, independent 
of the various forms it may assume. To equate hierarchical and 
self-managed decision making, antagonistic and harmonious forms
of organisation, alienated authority or authority retained in the
hands of those directly affected by it, can only be a source of
confusion. Rather than being a <i>"materialistic"</i> approach, the 
Marxist one is pure philosophical idealism - the postulating of
a-historic concepts independently of the individuals and societies
that generate specific social relationships and ways of working
together.
</p><p>
Similarly, it would be churlish to note that Marxists themselves
have habitually rejected democratic authority when it suited them.
Even that <i>"higher type of democracy"</i> of the soviets was ignored
by the Bolshevik party once it was in power. As we discuss in 
<a href="secH6.html#sech61">section H.6.1</a>, faced with the election 
of non-Bolshevik majorities to the soviets, Bolshevik armed force 
was used to overthrow the results. In addition, they also gerrymanderd
soviets once they could not longer count on an electoral majority.
In the workplace, the Bolsheviks replaced workers' economic democracy 
with <i>"one-man management"</i> appointed from above, by the state, 
armed with <i>"dictatorial power"</i> (see <a href="secH3.html#sech314">section H.3.14</a>). 
As discussed in <a href="secH3.html#sech38">section H.3.8</a>, the
Bolsheviks generalised their experiences exercising power into  
explicit support for party dictatorship. Throughout the 1920s and
30s, Trotsky repeated this conclusion and repeated advocated party
dictatorship, urging the party to use its power to crush opposition
in the working class to its rule. For the Bolshevik tradition, the 
power of the party to ignore the wishes of the class it claims to 
represent is a fundamental ideological position.
</p><p>
So, remember when Lenin or Trotsky argue for <i>"party dictatorship"</i>, 
the over-riding of the democratic decisions of the masses by the party, 
the elimination of workers factory committees in favour of appointed 
managers armed with <i>"dictatorial"</i> power or when the Bolshevik 
disbanded soviets with non-Bolshevik majorities, it is <b>anarchism</b> 
which is fundamentally <i>"anti-democratic"</i>! All in all, that anyone 
can claim that anarchism is more <i>"anti-democratic"</i> than Leninism 
is a joke. 
</p><p>
However, all these anti-democratic acts do fit in nicely with Howl's 
<i>"materialist"</i> Marxist concept that <i>"'authority' is necessary 
in <b>any</b> society where labour is collaborative."</i> Since 
<i>"authority"</i> is essential and all forms of collective decision 
making are necessarily <i>"authoritarian"</i> and involve 
<i>"subordination,"</i> then it clearly does not really matter how 
collectives are organised and how decisions are reached. Hence the lack 
of concern for the liberty of the working people subjected to the (peculiarly 
bourgeois-like) forms of authority preferred by Lenin and Trotsky. It was 
precisely for this reason, to differentiate between egalitarian (and so 
libertarian) forms of organisation and decision making and authoritarian 
ones, that anarchists called themselves <i>"anti-authoritarians."</i> 
</p><p>
Even if we ignore all the anti-democratic acts of Bolshevism (or
justify them in terms of the problems facing the Russian Revolution,
as most Leninists do), the anti-democratic nature of Leninist ideas
still come to the fore. The Leninist support for centralised state 
power brings their attack on anarchism as being <i>"anti-democratic"</i> 
into clear perspective and, ultimately, results in the affairs
of millions being decided upon by a handful of people in the 
Central Committee of the vanguard party. As an example, we will
discuss Trotsky's arguments against the Makhnovist movement in the
Ukraine. 
</p><p>
For Trotsky, the Makhnovists were against <i>"Soviet power."</i> 
This, he argued, was simply <i>"the authority of all the local soviets
in the Ukraine"</i> as they all <i>"recognise the central power
which they themselves have elected."</i> Consequently, the Makhnovists
rejected not only central authority but also the local soviets
as well. Trotsky also suggested that there were no <i>"appointed"</i> 
persons in Russia as <i>"there is no authority in Russia but that 
which is elected by the whole working class and working peasantry. 
It follows [!] that commanders appointed by the central Soviet 
Government are installed in their positions by the will of the 
working millions."</i> He stressed that one can speak of <i>"appointed"</i> 
persons <i>"only under the bourgeois order, when Tsarist officials 
or bourgeois ministers appointed at their own discretion commanders 
who kept the soldier masses subject to the bourgeois classes."</i> 
When the Makhnovists tried to call the fourth regional conference 
of peasants, workers and partisans to discuss the progress of the 
Civil War in early 1919, Trotsky, unsurprisingly enough, 
<i>"categorically banned"</i> it. With typical elitism, he noted 
that the Makhnovist movement had <i>"its roots in the ignorant 
masses"</i>! [<b>How the Revolution Armed</b>, vol. II, p. 277, 
p. 280, p. 295 and p. 302] 
</p><p>
In other words, because the Bolshevik government had been given 
power by a national Soviet Congress in the past (and only remained 
there by gerrymandering and disbanding soviets), he (as its 
representative) had the right to ban a conference which would have 
expressed the wishes of millions of workers, peasants and partisans 
fighting for the revolution! The fallacious nature of his arguments 
is easily seen. Rather than executing the will of millions of toilers,
Trotsky was simply executing his own will. He did not consult
those millions nor the local soviets which had, in Bolshevik 
ideology, surrendered their power to the handful of people in
the central committee of the Bolshevik Party. By banning the
conference he was very effectively undermining the practical, 
functional democracy of millions and replacing it with a purely 
formal "democracy" based on empowering a few leaders at the
centre. Yes, indeed, truly democracy in action when one person 
can deny a revolutionary people its right to decide its own
fate!
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, the anarchist Nestor Makhno replied by 
arguing that he considered it <i>"an inviolable right of
the workers and peasants, a right won by the revolution,
to call congresses on their own account, to discuss their
affairs. That is why the prohibition by the central
authorities on the calling of such congresses . . .
represent a direct and insolent violation of the rights of
the workers."</i> [quoted by Peter Arshinov, <b>The History of
the Makhnovist Movement</b>, p. 129] We will leave it to the
readers to decide which of the two, Trotsky or Makhno, 
showed the fundamentally <i>"anti-democratic"</i> perspective.
</p><p>
Moreover, there are a few theoretical issues that need to be
raised on this matter. Notice, for example, that no attempt 
is made to answer the simple question of why having 51% of 
a group automatically makes you right! It is taken for 
granted that the minority should subject themselves to the 
will of the majority before that will is even decided upon. 
Does that mean, for example, that Marxists refuse minorities 
the right of civil disobedience if the majority acts in a way 
which harms their liberties and equality? If, for example, the 
majority in community decides to implement race laws, does that 
mean that Marxists would <b>oppose</b> the discriminated minority 
taking direct action to undermine and abolish them? Or, to take 
an example closer to Marxism, in 1914 the leaders of the Social 
Democratic Party in the German Parliament voted for war credits. 
The anti-war minority of that group went along with the majority 
in the name of "democracy," "unity" and "discipline". Would Howl 
and Draper argue that they were right to do so? If they were not
right to betray the ideas of Marxism and international working
class solidarity, then why not? They did, after all, subject 
themselves to the <i>"most perfect socialist democracy"</i> and 
so, presumably, made the correct decision. 
</p><p>
Simply put, the arguments that anarchists are <i>"anti-democratic"</i> 
are question-begging in the extreme, when not simply hypocritical.
</p><p>
As a general rule-of-thumb, anarchists have little problem 
with the minority accepting the decisions of the majority
after a process of free debate and discussion. As we argue
in <a href="secA2.html#seca211">section A.2.11</a>, 
such collective decision making is 
compatible with anarchist principles - indeed, is based 
on them. By governing ourselves directly, we exclude others 
governing us. However, we do not make a fetish of this, 
recognising that, in certain circumstances, the minority 
must and should ignore majority decisions. For example, 
if the majority of an organisation decide on a policy 
which the minority thinks is disastrous then why should 
they follow the majority? Equally, if the majority make 
a decision which harms the liberty and equality of a
non-oppressive and non-exploitative minority, then that 
minority has the right to reject the "authority" of the
majority. Hence Carole Pateman:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The essence of liberal social contract theory is that individuals
ought to promise to, or enter an agreement to, obey representatives,
to whom they have alienated their right to make political decisions
. . . Promising . . . is an expression of individual freedom and
equality, yet commits individuals for the future. Promising also
implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement and
rational deliberation, and of evaluating and changing their own
actions and relationships; promises may sometimes justifiably be
broken. However, to promise to obey is to deny or limit, to a
greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and
their ability to exercise these capacities. To promise to obey
is to state that, in certain areas, the person making the promise
is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her
own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate."</i> [<b>The
Problem of Political Obligation</b>, p. 19]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus, for anarchists, a democracy which does not involve individual
rights to dissent, to disagree and to practice civil disobedience
would violate freedom and equality, the very values Marxists usually 
claim to be at the heart of their politics. The claim that anarchism 
is <i>"anti-democratic"</i> basically hides the argument that the minority 
must become the slave of the majority - with no right of dissent 
when the majority is wrong (in practice, of course, it is usually
meant the orders and laws of the minority who are elected to power). 
In effect, it wishes the minority to be subordinate, not equal, 
to the majority. Anarchists, in contrast, because we support 
self-management also recognise the importance of dissent and 
individuality - in essence, because we are in favour of 
self-management ("democracy" does not do the concept justice) we 
also favour the individual freedom that is its rationale. We 
support the liberty of individuals because we believe in 
self-management ("democracy") so passionately. 
</p><p>
So Howl and Draper fail to understand the rationale for 
democratic decision making - it is not based on the idea that 
the majority is always right but that individual freedom requires 
democracy to express and defend itself. By placing the collective 
above the individual, they undermine democratic values and replace 
them with little more than tyranny by the majority (or, more likely, 
a tiny minority who claim to represent the majority).
</p><p>
Moreover, progress is determined by those who dissent and rebel against 
the status quo and the decisions of the majority. That is why anarchists 
support the right of dissent in self-managed groups - in fact, dissent, 
refusal, revolt by individuals and minorities is a key aspect of 
self-management. Given that Leninists do not support self-management 
(rather they, at best, support the Lockean notion of electing a government 
as being "democracy") it is hardly surprising they, like Locke, view 
dissent as a danger and something to denounce. Anarchists, on
the other hand, recognising that self-management's (i.e. direct 
democracy's) rationale and base is in individual freedom, recognise 
and support the rights of individuals to rebel against what they 
consider as unjust impositions. As history shows, the anarchist 
position is the correct one - without rebellion, numerous 
minorities would never have improved their position and society
would stagnate. Indeed, Howl's and Draper's comments are just a 
reflection of the standard capitalist diatribe against strikers 
and protestors - they do not need to protest, for they live in 
a "democracy."
</p><p>
This Marxist notion that anarchists are "anti-democratic" gets them 
into massive contradictions. Lance Selfa's highly inaccurate and 
misleading article <i>"Emma Goldman: A life of controversy"</i> is 
an example of this [<b>International Socialist Review</b>, no. 34, 
March-April 2004] Ignoring the far more substantial evidence for 
Leninist elitism, Selfa asserted that <i>"Goldman never turned away 
from the idea that heroic individuals, not masses, make history"</i> 
and quotes from her 1910 essay <i>"Minorities Versus Majorities"</i> 
to prove this. Significantly, he does not actually refute the arguments 
Goldman expounded. He does, needless to say, misrepresent them. 
</p><p>
The aim of Goldman's essay was to state the obvious - that the mass is not the 
source for new ideas. Rather, new, progressive, ideas are the product of 
minorities and which then spread to the majority by the actions of those 
minorities. Even social movements and revolutions start when a minority 
takes action. Trade unionism, for example, was (and still is) a minority 
movement in most countries. Support for racial and sexual equality was 
long despised (or, at best, ignored) by the majority and it took a resolute 
minority to advance that cause and spread the idea in the majority. The 
Russian Revolution did not start with the majority. It started when a minority 
of women workers (ignoring the advice of the local Bolsheviks) took to the 
streets and from these hundreds grew into a movement of hundreds of thousands.
</p><p>
The facts are clearly on the side of Goldman, not Selfa. Given that Goldman 
was expounding such an obvious law of social evolution, it seems incredulous 
that Selfa has a problem with it. This is particularly the case as Marxism 
(particularly its Leninist version) implicitly recognises this. As Marx argued, 
the ruling ideas of any epoch are those of the ruling class. Likewise for 
Goldman: <i>"Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and 
perverted false education in the interests of those who held power . . . by the 
State and the ruling class."</i> Hence the <i>"continuous struggle"</i> against 
<i>"the State and even against 'society,' that is, against the majority subdued 
and hypnotised by the State and State worship."</i> If this were not the case, 
as Goldman noted, no state could save itself or private property from the masses. 
Hence the need for people to break from their conditioning, to act for themselves. 
As she argued, such direct action is <i>"the salvation of man"</i> as it 
<i>"necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage."</i> [<b>Red Emma 
Speaks</b>, p. 111 and p. 76]
</p><p>
Thus Goldman, like other anarchists, was not dismissing the masses, just 
stressing the obvious: namely that socialism is a process of self-liberation 
and the task of the conscious minority is to encourage this process by 
encouraging the direct action of the masses. Hence Goldman's support for 
syndicalism and direct action, a support Selfa (significantly) fails to 
inform his readers of.
</p><p>
So was Goldman's rejection of "majorities" the elitism Selfa claims it was? 
No, far from it. This is clear from looking at that work in context. For 
example, in a debate between her and a socialist she used the Lawrence strike 
<i>"as an example of direct action."</i> [<b>Living My Life</b>, vol. 1., p. 491] 
The workers in one of the mills started the strike by walking out. The next 
day five thousand at another mill struck and marched to another mill and 
soon doubled their number. The strikers soon had to supply food and fuel 
for 50,000. [Howard Zinn, <b>A People's History of the United States</b>, 
pp. 327-8] Rather than the strike being the act of the majority, it was the 
direct action of a minority which started it and it then spread to the majority 
(a strike, incidentally, Goldman supported and fund raised for). It should also be
noted that the Lawrence strike reflected her ideas of how a general strike could be 
started by <i>"one industry or by a small, conscious minority among the workers"</i> 
which <i>"is soon taken up by many other industries, spreading like wildfire."</i> 
[<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 95] 
</p><p>
Do Marxists really argue that this was "elitist"? If so, then every spontaneous 
revolt is "elitist". Every attempt by oppressed minorities to resist their 
oppression is "elitist." Indeed, every attempt to change society is "elitist" 
as if it involves a minority not limiting themselves to simply advancing new 
ideas but, instead, taking direct action to raise awareness or to resist 
hierarchy in the here and now. Revolutions occur when the ideas of the 
majority catch up with the minority who inspire others with their ideas 
and activity. So in his keenness to label the anarchist movement "elitist", 
Selfa has also, logically, so-labelled the labour, feminist, peace and civil 
rights movements (among many others). 
</p><p>
Equally embarrassing for Selfa, Trotsky (a person whom he contrasts favourably 
with Goldman despite the fact he was a practitioner and advocate of party 
dictatorship) agreed with the anarchists on the importance of minorities. As 
he put it during the debate on Kronstadt in the late 1930s, a <i>"revolution is 
'made' directly by a <b>minority</b>. The success of a revolution is possible, 
however, only where this minority finds more or less support, or at least 
friendly neutrality, on the part of the majority. The shift in different 
stages of the revolution . . . is directly determined by changing political 
relations between the minority and the majority, between the vanguard and 
the class."</i> [Lenin and Trotsky, <b>Kronstadt</b>, p. 85] Not that this 
makes Trotsky an elitist for Selfa, of course. The key difference is that 
Goldman did not argue that this minority should seize power and rule the 
masses, regardless of the wishes of that majority, as Trotsky did 
(see <a href="secH1.html#sech12">section H.1.2</a>).  As Goldman noted, the 
<i>"Socialist demagogues know that [her argument is true] as well as I, 
but they maintain the myth of the virtues of the majority, because their 
very scheme means the perpetuation of power"</i> and <i>"authority, 
coercion and dependence rest on the mass, but never freedom."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 85] 
</p><p>
So, yes, anarchists do support individual freedom to resist even
democratically made decisions simply because democracy <b>has to be</b> 
based on individual liberty. Without the right of dissent, democracy
becomes a joke and little more than a numerical justification 
for tyranny. This does not mean we are <i>"anti-democratic,"</i> indeed
the reverse as we hold true to the fundamental rationale for
democratic decision-making - it allows individuals to combine
as equals and not as subordinates and masters. Moreover, diversity 
is essential for any viable eco-system and it is essential in any 
viable society (and, of course, any society worth living in). This
means that a healthy society is one which encourages diversity,
individuality, dissent and, equally, self-managed associations 
to ensure the freedom of all. As Malatesta argued: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"There are matters over which it is worth accepting the will of 
the majority because the damage caused by a split would be greater 
than that caused by error; there are circumstances in which 
discipline becomes a duty because to fail in it would be to fail 
in the solidarity between the oppressed and would mean betrayal 
in face of the enemy. But when one is convinced that the 
organisation is pursuing a course which threatens the future 
and makes it difficult to remedy the harm done, then it is a 
duty to rebel and to resist even at the risk of providing a split 
. . . What is essential is that individuals should develop a sense 
of organisation and solidarity, and the conviction that fraternal 
co-operation is necessary to fight oppression and to achieve a 
society in which everyone will be able to enjoy his [or her] own 
life."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, pp. 132-3] 
</blockquote></p><p>
This means that anarchists are not against majority decision making as 
such. We simply recognise it has limitations. In practice, the need for 
majority and minority to come to an agreement is one most anarchists 
would recognise: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"But such an adaptation [of the minority to the decisions
of the majority] on the one hand by one group must be reciprocal,
voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and of
goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being 
paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle
and statutory norm. . .
</p><p>
"So . . . anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern
in human society in general . . . how is it possible . . . to 
declare that anarchists should submit to the decisions of the 
majority before they have even heard what those might be?"</i> 
[Malatesta, <b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, pp. 100-1]
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore, while accepting majority decision making as a key
aspect of a revolutionary movement and a free society, anarchists
do not make a fetish of it. We recognise that we must use our
own judgement in evaluating each decision reached simply because
the majority is not always right. We must balance the need for
solidarity in the common struggle and needs of common life with
critical analysis and judgement. As Malatesta argued:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"In any case it is not a question of being right or wrong; it
is a question of freedom, freedom for all, freedom for each
individual so long as he [or she] does not violate the equal
freedom of others. No one can judge with certainty who is
right and who is wrong, who is closer to the truth and which
is the best road for the greatest good for each and everyone.
Experience through freedom is the only means to arrive at the
truth and the best solutions; and there is no freedom if there
is not the freedom to be wrong.
</p><p>
"In our opinion, therefore, it is necessary that majority and
minority should succeed in living together peacefully and
profitably by mutual agreement and compromise, by the
intelligent recognition of the practical necessities of
communal life and of the usefulness of concessions which
circumstances make necessary."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His 
Life and Ideas</b>, p. 72]
</blockquote></p><p>
Needless to say, our arguments apply with even more force to
the decisions of the <b>representatives</b> of the majority, who are
in practice a very small minority. Leninists usually try and
confuse these two distinct forms of decision making. When 
Leninists discuss majority decision making they almost always 
mean the decisions of those elected by the majority - the 
central committee or the government - rather than the majority 
of the masses or an organisation. Ultimately, the Leninist
support for democracy (as the Russian Revolution showed) is
conditional on whether the majority supports them or not. 
Anarchists are not as hypocritical or as elitist as this,
arguing that everyone should have the same rights the
Leninists usurp for their leaders.
</p><p>
This counterpoising of socialism to "individualism" is significant. The 
aim of socialism is, after all, to increase individual liberty (to quote 
the <b>Communist Manifesto</b>, to create <i>"an association, in which 
the free development of each is the condition for the free development 
of all."</i> [<b>The Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 491]). As such, authentic 
socialism <b>is</b> "individualist" in its aspirations and denounces 
capitalism for being a partial and flawed individualism which benefits
the few at the expense of the many (in terms of their development and 
individuality). This can be seen when Goldman, for example, argued that
anarchism <i>"alone stresses the importance of the individual, his [or
her] possibilities and needs in a free society."</i> It <i>"insists that 
the centre of gravity in society is the individual - that he must think 
for himself, act freely, and live fully. The aim of Anarchism is that 
every individual in the world shall be able to do so."</i> Needless to 
say, she differentiated her position from bourgeois ideology: <i>"Of
course, this has nothing in common with a much boasted 'rugged 
individualism.' Such predatory individualism is really flabby, not 
rugged . . . Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the many 
pretences the ruling class makes to unbridled business and political 
extortion."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 442 and p. 443] This support for 
individuality did not preclude solidarity, organising unions, practising 
direct action, supporting syndicalism, desiring communism and so on, but 
rather <b>required</b> it (as Goldman's own life showed). It flows 
automatically from a love of freedom for all. Given this, the typical 
Leninist attacks against anarchism for being "individualism" simply exposes 
the state capitalist nature of Bolshevism:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"capitalism promotes egotism, not individuality or 'individualism.'
. . . the ego it created . . . [is] shrivelled . . . The term
'bourgeois individualism,' an epithet widely used by the left today
against libertarian elements, reflects the extent to which bourgeois
ideology permeates the socialist project; indeed, the extent to 
which the 'socialist' project (as distinguished from the libertarian
communist project) is a mode of state capitalism."</i> [Murray 
Bookchin, <b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 194fn]
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore the Marxist attack on anarchism as <i>"anti-democratic"</i> 
is not only false, it is ironic and hypocritical. Firstly,
anarchists do <b>not</b> argue for <i>"the absolute sovereignty of 
the individual ego."</i> Rather, we argue for individual freedom.
This, in turn, implies a commitment to self-managed forms of
social organisation. This means that anarchists do not confuse
agreement with (hierarchical) authority. Secondly, Marxists do
not explain why the majority is always right or why their
opinions are automatically the truth. Thirdly, the logical
conclusions of their arguments would result in the absolute
enserfment of the individual to the representatives of the
majority. Fourthly, rather than being supporters of democracy, 
Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky explicitly argued for minority 
rule and the ignoring of majority decisions when they clashed 
with the decisions of the ruling party. Fifthly, their support 
for "democratic" centralised power means, in practice, the 
elimination of democracy in the grassroots. As can be seen 
from Trotsky's arguments against the Makhnovists, the 
democratic organisation and decisions of millions can be 
banned by a single individual.
</p><p>
All in all, Marxists claims that anarchists are <i>"anti-democratic"</i> 
just backfire on Marxism.</p>

<a name="sech212"><h2>H.2.12 Does anarchism survive only in the absence 
of a strong workers' movement?</h2></a>

<p>
Derek Howl argues that anarchism <i>"survives only in the absence
of a strong workers movement"</i> and is the politics of 
<i>"non-proletarians."</i> As he puts it, there <i>"is a class 
basis to this. Just as Proudhon's 'anarchism' reflected the petty 
bourgeoisie under pressure, so too Bakuninism as a movement rested 
upon non-proletarians . . . In Italy Bakuninism was based upon the 
large 'lumpen bourgeoisie', doomed petty bourgeois layers. In 
Switzerland the Jura Federation . . . was composed of a world of 
cottage industry stranded between the old world and the new, as 
were pockets of newly proletarianised peasants that characterised
anarchism in Spain."</i> He approvingly quotes Hal Draper assertion 
that anarchism <i>"was an ideology alien to the life of modern 
working people."</i> [<i>"The Legacy of Hal Draper,"</i> pp. 137-49, 
<b>International Socialism</b>, no. 52, p. 148] 
</p><p>
Ignoring the obvious contradiction of <i>"newly proletarianised
peasants"</i> being <i>"non-proletarians,"</i> we have the standard
Marxist <i>"class analysis"</i> of anarchism. This is to assert that
anarchism is <i>"non-proletarian"</i> while Marxism is <i>"proletarian."</i>
On the face of it, such an assertion seems to fly in the face of 
historical facts. After all, when Marx and Engels were writing the 
<b>Communist Manifesto</b>, the proletariat was a tiny minority of 
the population of a mostly rural, barely industrialised Germany. 
Perhaps it was Engels' experiences as a capitalist in England 
that allowed him an insight into <i>"the life of modern working 
people?"</i> It should also be noted that neither Howel or Draper 
is being original, they are simply repeating Marx's assertion that 
anarchism <i>"continues to exist only where there is as yet no proper 
workers' movement. This is a fact."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, 
vol. 24, p. 247]
</p><p>
Beyond this there are a few problems with this type of argument.
Firstly, there are the factual problems. Simply put, anarchism
appealed to <i>"modern"</i> working people and Marxism has appealed
to the <i>"non-proletarian"</i> groups and individuals (and vice versa, 
of course). This can be seen from the examples Howl lists as well 
as the rise of syndicalist ideas after the reformism of the first 
Marxist movement (social democracy) became apparent. In fact, the 
rise of Marxism within the labour movement is associated with its 
descent into reformism, <b>not</b> revolution. Secondly, there is 
the slight ideological problem that Lenin himself argued that the 
working class, by its own efforts, did not produce socialist ideas 
which were generated far from <i>"the life of modern working people"</i> 
by the intelligentsia. Lastly, there is the assumption that two 
long dead Germans, living in an environment where <i>"modern working 
people"</i> (proletarians) were a small minority of the working 
population, could really determine for all time what is (and is not) 
<i>"proletarian"</i> politics.
</p><p>
Taking the countries Howl lists, we can see that any claim that 
anarchism is <i>"alien"</i> to the working class is simply false.
Looking at each one, it is clearly the case that, for Marxists, 
the <b>politics</b> of the people involved signify their working 
class credentials, <b>not</b> their actual economic or social class. 
Thus we have the sociological absurdity that makes anarchist workers 
<i>"petty bourgeois"</i> while actual members of the bourgeoisie (like 
Engels) or professional revolutionaries (and the sons of middle 
class families like Marx, Lenin and Trotsky) are considered as 
representatives of <i>"proletarian"</i> politics. Indeed, when these
radical members of the middle-class repress working class people
(as did Lenin and Trotsky were in power) they <b>remain</b> figures
to be followed and their acts justified in terms of the "objective"
needs of the working people they are oppressing! Ultimately, for 
most Marxists, whether someone is <i>"non-proletariat"</i> depends on 
their ideological viewpoint and not, in fact, their actual class.
</p><p>
Hence we discover Marx and Engels (like their followers) blaming
Bakunin's success in the International, as one historian notes, 
<i>"on the middle-class leadership of Italy's socialist movement 
and the backwardness of the country. But if middle-class leaders 
were the catalysts of proletarian revolutionary efforts in Italy, 
this was also true of every other country in Europe, not excluding 
the General Council in London."</i> [T.R. Ravindranathan, <b>Bakunin and 
the Italians</b>, p. 168] And by interpreting the difficulties for
Marxism in this way, Marx and Engels (like their followers)
need not question their own ideas and assumptions. As Nunzio
Pernicone notes, <i>"[f]rom the outset, Engels had consistently
underestimated Bakunin as a political adversary and refused
to believe that Italian workers might embrace anarchist 
doctrines."</i> However, <i>"even a casual perusal of the 
internationalist and dissident democratic press would have
revealed to Engels that Bakuninism was rapidly developing
a following among Italian artisans and workers. But this
reality flew in the face of his unshakeable belief that
Italian internationalists were all a 'gang of declasses,
the refuse of the bourgeoisie.'"</i> Even after the rise of 
the Italian Marxism in the 1890s, <i>"the anarchist movement 
was proportionately more working-class than the PSI"</i> and
the <i>"the number of bourgeois intellectuals and professionals
that supported the PSI [Italian Socialist Party] was
vastly greater"</i> than those supporting anarchism. Indeed,
<i>"the percentage of party membership derived from the 
bourgeoisie was significantly higher in the PSI than among
the anarchists."</i> [<b>Italian Anarchism, 1864-1892</b>, p. 82 and 
p. 282] Ironically, given Engels diatribes against the Italian
anarchists stopping workers following <i>"proletarian"</i> (i.e.
Marxist) politics and standing for elections, <i>"as the PSI 
grew more working-class, just before the outbreak of war [in 
1914], its Directorate [elected by the party congress] grew more 
anti-parliamentary."</i> [Gwyn A. Williams, <b>Proletarian Order</b>, 
p. 29] 
</p><p>
As we noted in <a href="secA5.html#seca55">section A.5.5</a>, 
the role of the anarchists and 
syndicalists compared to the Marxists during the 1920 near 
revolution suggested that the real <i>"proletarian"</i> revolutionaries 
were, in fact, the former and <b>not</b> the latter. All in all,
the history of the Italian labour movement clearly show that,
for most Marxists, whether a group represents the <i>"proletariat"</i>
is simply dependent on their ideological commitment, <b>not</b>
their actual class. 
</p><p>
As regards the Jura Federation, we discover that its support was
wider than suggested. As Marxist Paul Thomas noted, <i>"Bakunin's 
initial support in Switzerland - like Marx's in England - came 
from resident aliens, political refugees . . . but he also 
gathered support among <b>Gastarbeitier</b> for whom Geneva 
was already a centre, where builders, carpenters and
workers in heavy industry tended to be French or Italian
. . . Bakunin . . .  also marshalled considerable support among
French speaking domestic workers and watchmakers in the Jura."</i> 
[<b>Karl Marx and the Anarchists</b>, p. 390] It would be interesting
to hear a Marxist claim that <i>"heavy industry"</i> represented the
past or <i>"non-proletarian"</i> elements! Similarly, E. H. Carr in his
(hostile) biography of Bakunin, noted that the <i>"sections of the
International at Geneva fell into two groups."</i> Skilled craftsmen
formed the <i>"Right wing"</i> while <i>"the builders, carpenters, and
workers in the heavier trades, the majority of whom were immigrants 
from France and Italy, represented the Left."</i> Unsurprisingly, 
these different groups of workers had different politics. The 
craftsmen <i>"concentrated on . . . reform"</i> while the others 
<i>"nourished hopes of a complete social upheaval."</i> Bakunin, 
as would be expected, <i>"fanned the spirit of revolt"</i> among 
these, the proletarian workers and soon had a <i>"commanding
position in the Geneva International."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin</b>, 
p. 361] It should be noted that Marx and the General Council of the
International consistently supported the reformist wing of the
International in Geneva which organised political alliances
with the middle-class liberals during elections. Given these 
facts, it is little wonder that Howl concentrates on the 
support Bakunin received from domestic workers producing 
watches. To mention the support for Bakunin by organised, 
obviously proletarian, workers would undermine his case and 
so it is ignored.
</p><p>
Lastly, there is Spain. It seems funny that a Marxist would use
Spain as an example <b>against</b> the class roots of anarchism. 
After all, that is one of the countries where anarchism dominated
the working class movement. As one historian points out, <i>"it
was not until the 1860s - when anarchism was introduced -
that a substantive working class movement began to emerge"</i>
and <i>"throughout the history of Spanish anarchism, its survival
depended in large measure on the anarchists' ability to
maintain direct links with the workers."</i> [George R. Esenwein,
<b>Anarchist Ideology and the Working-Class Movement in Spain,
1868-1898</b>, p. 6 and p. 207] As well as organising <i>"newly
proletarianised peasants,"</i> the "Bakuninists" also 
organised industrial workers - indeed, far more successfully than
the Socialists. Ironically, the UGT only started to approach 
the size of the CNT once it had started to organise <i>"newly 
proletarianised peasants"</i> in the 1930s (i.e., anarchist 
unions organised more of the industrial working class than
the Socialist ones). From such a fact, we wonder if Marxists 
would argue that socialism rested on <i>"non-proletarian"</i> 
elements?
</p><p>
Moreover, the logic of dismissing anarchism as <i>"non-proletarian"</i> 
because it organised <i>"newly proletarianised peasants"</i> is simply 
laughable. After all, capitalism needed landless labours in order 
to start. This meant that the first proletarians lived in rural 
areas and were made up of ex-peasants. When these ex-peasants arrived
in the towns and cities, they were still <i>"newly proletarianised
peasants."</i> To ignore these groups of workers would mean potentially 
harming the labour movement. And, of course, a large section of 
Bolshevik support in 1917 was to be found in <i>"newly proletarianised 
peasants"</i> whether in the army or working in the factories. Ironically 
enough, the Mensheviks argued that the Bolsheviks gained their influence 
from worker-peasant industrial <i>"raw recruits"</i> and not from the 
genuine working class. [Orlando Figes, <b>A People's Tragedy</b>, 
p. 830] As such, to dismiss anarchism because it gained converts 
from similar social strata as the Bolsheviks seems, on the face 
of it, a joke. 
</p><p>
As can be seen Howl's attempts to subject anarchism to a <i>"class
analysis"</i> simply fails. He selects the evidence which fits his
theory and ignores that which does not. However, looking at the
very examples he bases his case on shows how nonsensical it is.
Simply put, anarchist ideas appealed to many types of workers,
including typically <i>"proletarian"</i> ones who worked in large-scale
industries. What they seem to have in common is a desire for radical 
social change, organised by themselves in their own combative class 
organs (such as unions). Moreover, like the early British workers 
movement, they considered these unions, as well as being organs of 
class struggle, could also be the framework of a free socialist 
society. Such a perspective is hardly backward (indeed, since 1917 
most Marxists pay lip-service to this vision!).
</p><p>
Which brings us to the next major problem with Howl's argument,
namely the fate of Marxism and the <i>"strong"</i> labour movement
it allegedly is suited for. Looking at the only nation which 
did have a <i>"modern"</i> working class during the most of Marx's 
life, Britain, the <i>"strong"</i> labour movement it produced was 
(and has) not been anarchist, it is true, but neither was it 
(nor did it become) Marxist. Rather, it has been a mishmash of 
conflicting ideas, predominately reformist state socialist ones 
which owe little, if anything, to Marx. Indeed, the closest 
Britain came to developing a wide scale revolutionary working 
class movement was during the <i>"syndicalist revolt"</i> of the 1910s. 
Ironically, some Marxists joined this movement simply because 
the existing Marxist parties were so reformist or irrelevant 
to the <i>"life of modern working people."</i> 
</p><p>
Looking at other countries, we find the same process. The rise of 
social democracy (Marxism) in the international labour movement 
simply signified the rise of reformism. Instead of producing a 
<b>revolutionary</b> labour movement, Marxism helped produce the 
opposite (although, initially, hiding reformist activity behind 
revolutionary rhetoric). So when Howl asserts that anarchism 
<i>"survives in the absence of a strong workers' movement,"</i> 
we have to wonder what planet he is on. 
</p><p>
Thus, to state matters more correctly, anarchism flourishes
during those periods when the labour movement and its members
are radical, taking direct action and creating new forms of
organisation which are still based on workers' self-management.
This is to be expected as anarchism is both based upon and
is the result of workers' self-liberation through struggle.
In less militant times, the effects of bourgeois society and 
the role of unions within the capitalist economy can de-radicalise 
the labour movement and lead to the rise of bureaucracy within it. 
It is then, during periods when the class struggle is low, that 
reformist ideas spread. Sadly, Marxism aided that spread by its 
tactics - the role of electioneering focused struggle away from
direct action and into the ballot-box and so onto leaders rather
than working class self-activity.
</p><p>
Moreover, if we look at the current state of the labour movement, 
then we would have to conclude that Marxism is <i>"an ideology alien 
to the life of modern working people."</i> Where are the large Marxist 
working class unions and parties? There are a few large reformist 
socialist and Stalinist parties in continental Europe, but these 
are not Marxist in any meaningful sense of the word. Most of the 
socialist ones used to be Marxist, although they relatively quickly 
stopped being revolutionary in any meaningful sense of the word 
a very long time ago (some, like the German Social Democrats, 
organised counter-revolutionary forces to crush working class 
revolt after the First World War). As for the Stalinist parties, 
it would be better to consider it a sign of shame that they get 
any support in the working class at all. In terms of revolutionary 
Marxists, there are various Trotskyist sects arguing amongst themselves 
on who is the <b>real</b> vanguard of the proletariat, but <b>no</b> 
Marxist labour movement.
</p><p>
Which, of course, brings us to the next point, namely the ideological
problems for Leninists themselves by such an assertion. After all,
Lenin himself argued that <i>"the life of modern working people"</i> could
only produce <i>"trade-union consciousness."</i> According to him,
socialist ideas were developed independently of working people by
the socialist (middle-class) <i>"intelligentsia."</i> As we discuss
in <a href="secH5.html#sech51">section H.5.1</a>, for Lenin, socialism 
was an ideology which was alien to the life of modern working class 
people. 
</p><p>
Lastly, there is the question of whether Marx and Engels can
seriously be thought of as being able to decree once and for
all what is and is not <i>"proletarian"</i> politics. Given that
neither of these men were working class (one was a capitalist!)
it makes the claim that they would know <i>"proletarian"</i> politics
suspect. Moreover, they formulated their ideas of what constitute
<i>"proletarian"</i> politics before a modern working class actually
developed in any country bar Britain. This means, that from the
experience of <b>one</b> section of the proletariat in <b>one</b> 
country in the 1840s, Marx and Engels have decreed for all time what 
is and is not a <i>"proletarian"</i> set of politics! On the face of 
it, it is hardly a convincing argument, particularly as we have over 
150 years of experience of these tactics with which to evaluate them!
</p><p>
Based on this perspective, Marx and Engels opposed all other 
socialist groups as <i>"sects"</i> if they did not subscribe to their
ideas. Ironically, while arguing that all other socialists were
fostering their sectarian politics onto the workers movement, 
they themselves fostered their own perspective onto it.
Originally, because the various sections of the International
worked under different circumstances and had attained different 
degrees of development, the theoretical ideals which reflected 
the real movement also diverged. The International, therefore, 
was open to all socialist and working class tendencies and its general 
policies would be, by necessity, based on conference decisions 
that reflected this divergence. These decisions would be determined 
by free discussion within and between sections of all economic, 
social and political ideas. Marx, however, replaced this policy 
with a common program of <i>"political action"</i> (i.e. electioneering) 
by mass political parties via the fixed Hague conference of 1872. 
Rather than having this position agreed by the normal exchange 
of ideas and theoretical discussion in the sections guided by 
the needs of the practical struggle, Marx imposed what <b>he</b> 
considered as the future of the workers movement onto the 
International - and denounced those who disagreed with him 
as sectarians. The notion that what Marx considered as necessary 
might be another sectarian position imposed on the workers' 
movement did not enter his head nor those of his followers:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Marx had indeed insisted, in the earlier years of the First
International, on the need for building on actual movements 
rather than constructing a dogma which movements were then 
required to fit. But when the actual movements took forms 
which he disliked, as they largely did in Spain and Italy,
in Germany under Lassalle's influence, and in Great Britain
as soon as the Trade Unions' most immediate demands had been
met, he was apt to forget his own precepts and to become the
grand inquisitor into heretical misdeeds."</i> [G.D.H. Cole, 
<b>A History of Socialist Thought</b>, vol. 2, p. 256]
</blockquote></p><p>
</p><p>
That support for <i>"political action"</i> was just as "sectarian" as
support for non-participation in elections can be seen from Engels 1895
comment that <i>"[t]here had long been universal suffrage in France, but 
it had fallen into disrepute through the misuse to which the Bonapartist
government had put it . . . It also existed in Spain since the republic, 
but in Spain boycott of elections was ever the rule of all serious opposition 
parties . . . The revolutionary workers of the Latin countries had been wont 
to regard the suffrage as a snare, as an instrument of government trickery."</i>
[<b>Marx-Engels Reader</b>, p. 565] Needless to say, he had failed to mention 
those little facts when he was attacking anarchists for expressing the 
opinions of the <i>"revolutionary workers of the Latin countries"</i> and
<i>"all serious opposition parties"</i> in the 1870s! Similarly, the 
Haymarket Martyrs had moved from a Marxist position on elections to an
anarchist one after their own experiences using the ballot box, as did the 
many British socialists who became syndicalists in the early years of the 
20th century. It seems strange to conclude that these positions are not
expressions of working class struggle while that of Marx and Engels are,
particularly given the terrible results of that strategy!
</p><p>
Thus the Marxist claim that true working class movements are based 
on mass political parties based on hierarchical, centralised, 
leadership and those who reject this model and political action 
(electioneering) are sects and sectarians is simply their option
and little more. Once we look at the workers' movement without 
the blinkers created by Marxism, we see that Anarchism was a 
movement of working class people using what they considered 
valid tactics to meet their own social, economic and political 
goals - tactics and goals which evolved to meet changing 
circumstances. Seeing the rise of anarchism and syndicalism 
as the political expression of the class struggle, guided by 
the needs of the practical struggle they faced naturally 
follows when we recognise the Marxist model for what it 
is - just one possible interpretation of the future of the 
workers' movement rather than <b>the</b> future of that movement
(and as the history of Social Democracy indicates, the 
predictions of Bakunin and the anarchists within the First 
International were proved correct). 
</p><p>
This tendency to squeeze the revolutionary workers' movement into
the forms decreed by two people in the mid-nineteenth century has
proved to be disastrous for it. Even after the total failure of
social democracy, the idea of <i>"revolutionary"</i> parliamentarianism
was fostered onto the Third International by the Bolsheviks in spite
of the fact that more and more revolutionary workers in advanced
capitalist nations were rejecting it in favour of direct action
and autonomous working class self-organisation. Anarchists and
libertarian Marxists based themselves on this actual movement of
working people, influenced by the failure of <i>"political action,"</i>
while the Bolsheviks based themselves on the works of Marx and
Engels and their own experiences in a backward, semi-feudal society
whose workers had already created factory committees and soviets 
by direct action. It was for this reason that the anarcho-syndicalist
Augustin Souchy said he referred <i>"to the tendencies that exist in
the modern workers' movement"</i> when he argued at the Second Congress 
of the Communist International:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"It must be granted that among revolutionary workers the tendency
toward parliamentarism is disappearing more and more. On the
contrary, a strong anti-parliamentary tendency is becoming 
apparent in the ranks of the most advanced part of the proletariat.
Look at the Shop Stewards' movement [in Britain] or Spanish
syndicalism . . . The IWW is absolutely antiparliamentary . . .
I want to point out that the idea of antiparliamentarism is
asserting itself more strongly in Germany . . . as a result of
the revolution itself . . . We must view the question in this
light."</i> [<b>Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920</b>,
vol. 1, pp. 176-7]
</blockquote></p><p>
Of course, this perspective of basing yourself on the ideas and
tactics generated by the class struggle was rejected in
favour of a return to the principles of Marx and Engels and their
vision of what constituted a genuine <i>"proletarian"</i> movement. If 
these tactics were the correct ones, then why did they not lead 
to a less dismal set of results? After all, the degeneration of
social democracy into reformism would suggest their failure and
sticking <i>"revolutionary"</i> before their tactics (as in <i>"revolutionary
parliamentarianism"</i>) changes little. Marxists, like anarchists, are
meant to be materialists, not idealists. What was the actual outcome 
of the Leninist strategies? Did they result in successful proletarian 
revolutions. No, they did not. The revolutionary wave peaked and
fell and the Leninist parties themselves very easily and quickly
became Stalinised. Significantly, those areas with a large anarchist,
syndicalist or quasi-syndicalist (e.g. the council communists) 
workers movements (Italy, Spain and certain parts of Germany) 
came closest to revolution and by the mid-1930s, only Spain with 
its strong anarchist movement had a revolutionary labour movement.
Therefore, rather than representing <i>"non-proletarian"</i> or 
<i>"sectarian"</i> politics forced upon the working class, anarchism 
reflected the politics required to built a <b>revolutionary</b> workers' 
movement rather than a reformist mass party.
</p><p>
As such, perhaps we can finally lay to rest the idea that Marx
predicted the whole future of the labour movement and the path 
it must take like some kind of socialist Nostradamus. Equally,
we can dismiss Marxist claims of the <i>"non-proletarian"</i> nature 
of anarchism as uninformed and little more than an attempt to 
squeeze history into an ideological prison. As noted above, 
in order to present such an analysis, the actual class 
compositions of significant events and social movements have 
to be manipulated. This is the case of the Paris Commune, 
for example, which was predominantly a product of artisans 
(i.e. the <i>"petit bourgeoisie"</i>), <b>not</b> the industrial 
working class and yet claimed by Marxists as an example of the 
<i>"dictatorship of the proletariat."</i> Ironically, many of the 
elements of the Commune praised by Marx can be found in the 
works of Proudhon and Bakunin which pre-date the uprising. 
Similarly, the idea that workers' fighting organisations 
("soviets") would be the means to abolish the state and the 
framework of a socialist society can be found in Bakunin's works,
decades before Lenin paid lip-service to this idea in 1917. For a 
theory allegedly resting on <i>"non-proletarian"</i> elements 
anarchism has successfully predicted many of the ideas Marxists 
claim to have learnt from proletarian class struggle! 
</p><p>
So, in summary, the claims that anarchism is <i>"alien"</i> to working
class life, that it is <i>"non-proletarian"</i> or <i>"survives in the
absence of a strong workers' movement"</i> are simply false. Looking
objectively at the facts of the matter quickly shows that this 
is the case.</p>

<a name="sech213"><h2>H.2.13 Do anarchists reject <i>"political"</i> 
struggles and action?</h2></a>

<p>
A common Marxist claim is that anarchists and syndicalists 
ignore or dismiss the importance of <i>"political"</i> struggles or
action. This is not true. Rather, as we discuss in 
<a href="secJ2.html#secj210">section
J.2.10</a>, we think that <i>"political"</i> struggles should be 
conducted by the same means as social and economic struggles, 
namely by direct action, solidarity and working class 
self-organisation.
</p><p>
As this is a common assertion, it is useful to provide a quick 
summary of why anarchists do not, in fact, reject <i>"political"</i> 
struggles and action as such. Rather, to quote Bakunin, 
anarchism <i>"does not reject politics generally. It will 
certainly be forced to involve itself insofar as it will 
be forced to struggle against the bourgeois class. It 
only rejects bourgeois politics"</i> as it <i>"establishes 
the predatory domination of the bourgeoisie."</i> [<b>The Political 
Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 313] For Kropotkin, it was a
truism that it was <i>"absolutely impossible . . . to confine
the ideas of the working mass within the narrow circle of
reductions in working hours and wage increases . . . The
social question compels attention."</i> This fact implied two
responses: <i>"the workers' organisation propels itself either 
into the sterile path of parliamentary politics as in
Germany, or into the path of revolution."</i> [quoted by 
Caroline Cahm, <b>Kropotkin and the rise of Revolutionary
Anarchism, 1872-1886</b>, p. 241] 
</p><p>
So while Marxists often argue that anarchists are exclusively 
interested in economic struggle and reject <i>"politics"</i> or 
<i>"political action,"</i> the truth of the matter is different.
We are well aware of the importance of political issues,
although anarchists reject using bourgeois methods in
favour of direct action. Moreover, we are aware that any
social or economic struggle has its political aspects and
that such struggles bring the role of the state as defender
of capitalism and the need to struggle against it into 
focus:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"There is no serious strike that occurs today without the
appearance of troops, the exchange of blows and some acts of
revolt. Here they fight with the troops; there they march on
the factories; . . . in Pittsburgh in the United States, the
strikers found themselves masters of a territory as large as
France, and the strike became the signal for a general revolt 
against the State; in Ireland the peasants on strike found
themselves in open revolt against the State. Thanks to 
government intervention the rebel against the factory becomes 
the rebel against the State."</i> [Kropotkin, quoted by Caroline 
Cahm, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 256]
</blockquote></p><p>
As Malatesta argued, from <i>"the economic struggle one must
pass to the political struggle, that is to struggle against
government; and instead of opposing the capitalist millions
with the workers' few pennies scraped together with difficulty,
one must oppose the rifles and guns which defend property
with the more effective means that the people will be able to 
defeat force by force."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and 
Ideas</b>, pp. 193-4] 
</p><p>
This means that the question of whether to conduct political 
struggles is <b>not</b> the one which divides anarchists from
Marxists. Rather, it is a question of <b>how</b> this struggle
is fought. For anarchists, this struggle is best fought using
<b>direct action</b> (see 
<a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a>) and fighting working class 
organisations based in our workplaces and communities. For
Marxists, the political struggle is seen as being based on
standing candidates in bourgeois elections. This can be seen 
from the resolution passed by the socialist ("Second") 
International in 1893. This resolution was designed to 
exclude anarchists and stated that only <i>"those Socialist
Parties and Organisations which recognise the organisation
of workers and of political action"</i> could join the 
International. By <i>"political action"</i> it meant <i>"that 
the working-class organisations seek, in as far as possible, 
to use or conquer political rights and the machinery of 
legislation for the furthering of the interests of the 
proletariat and the conquest of political power."</i> [quoted 
by Susan Milner, <b>The Dilemmas of Internationalism</b>,
p. 49] Significantly, while this International and its member 
parties (particular the German Social Democrats) were happy to 
expel anarchists, they never expelled the leading reformists 
from their ranks.
</p><p>
So, in general, anarchists use the word <i>"political action"</i> to 
refer exclusively to the taking part of revolutionaries in 
bourgeois elections (i.e. electioneering or parliamentarianism). 
It does not mean a rejection of fighting for political reforms 
or a lack of interest in political issues, quite the reverse in
fact. The reason <b>why</b> anarchists reject this tactic is discussed
in <a href="secJ2.html#secj26">section J.2.6</a>). 
</p><p>
For Kropotkin, the idea that you could somehow "prepare" for a
revolution by electioneering was simply a joke. <i>"As if the
bourgeoisie,"</i> he argued, <i>"still holding on to its capital,
could allow them [the socialists] to experiment with socialism
even if they succeeded in gaining control of power! As if the
conquest of the municipalities were possible without the
conquest of the factories."</i> He saw that <i>"those who yesterday 
were considered socialists are today letting go of socialism, 
by renouncing its mother idea ["the need to replace the wage 
system and to abolish individual ownership of . . . social 
capital"] and passing over into the camp of the bourgeoisie, 
while retaining, so as to hide their turnabout, the label of 
socialism."</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 181 and p. 180]
The differences in results between direct action and electioneering
were obvious:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"However moderate the war cry - provided it is in the domain of
relations between capital and labour - as soon as it proceeds to
put it into practice by revolutionary methods, it ends by 
increasing it and will be led to demand the overthrow of the
regime of property. On the other hand a party which confines
itself to parliamentary politics ends up abandoning its programme,
however advanced it may have been at the beginning."</i> [Kropotkin,
quoted by Cahm, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 252]
</blockquote></p><p>
Ultimately, the bourgeois tactics used ended up with bourgeois
results. As Emma Goldman argued, socialism <i>"was led astray by
the evil spirit of politics"</i> and <i>"landed in the [political]
trap and has now but one desire - to adjust itself to the
narrow confines of its cage, to become part of the authority,
part of the very power that has slain the beautiful child 
Socialism and left behind a hideous monster."</i> [<b>Red Emma 
Speaks</b>, p. 103] The net effect of <i>"political action"</i> was 
the corruption of the socialist movement into a reformist party
which betrayed the promise of socialism in favour of making
existing society better (so it can last longer). This process
confirmed Bakunin's predictions. As Kropotkin put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The middle class will not give up its power without a struggle.
It will resist. And in proportion as Socialists will become
part of the Government and share power with the middle class,
their Socialism will grow paler and paler. This is, indeed,
what Socialism is rapidly doing. Were this no so, the middle
classes . . . would not share their power with the Socialists."</i> 
[<b>Evolution and Environment</b>, p. 102]
</blockquote></p><p>
In addition, as we argue in <a href="secJ2.html#secj25">section J.2.5</a>, 
direct action is either based on (or creates) forms of self-managed
working class organisations. The process of collective struggle,
in other words, necessitates collective forms of organisation
and decision making. These combative organisations, as well as
conducting the class struggle under capitalism, can also be the
framework of a free society (see 
<a href="secH1.html#sech14">section H.1.4</a>). However, standing
in elections does <b>not</b> produce such alternative social structures
and, indeed, hinders them as the focus for social changes becomes
a few leaders working in existing (i.e. bourgeois) structures and
bodies (see <a href="secH1.html#sech15">section H.1.5</a>). 
</p><p>
As can be seen, anarchists reject <i>"political"</i> struggle (i.e.
electioneering) for good (and historically vindicated) reasons.
This makes a mockery of Marxists assertions (beginning with Marx)
that anarchists like Bakunin <i>"opposed all political action
by the working class since this would imply 'recognition'
of the existing state."</i> [Derek Howl, <i>"The Legacy of Hal 
Draper,"</i> pp. 13-49, <b>International Socialism</b>, no. 52, p. 147] 
This, in fact, is a common Marxist claim, namely that anarchists 
reject <i>"political struggle"</i> on principle (i.e. for idealistic
purposes). In the words of Engels, Bakunin was <i>"opposed to all 
political action by the working class, since this would in fact 
involve recognition of the existing state."</i> [Marx, Engels and 
Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 49] Sadly, like 
all Marxists, he failed to indicate where, in fact, Bakunin 
actually said that. As can be seen, this was <b>not</b> the case.
Bakunin, like all revolutionary anarchists, rejected <i>"political
action"</i> (in the sense of electioneering) simply because they
feared that such tactics would be counterproductive and
undermine the revolutionary nature of the labour movement. As
the experience of Marxist Social Democracy showed, he was correct.
</p><p>
In summary, while anarchists reject standing of socialists in
elections (<i>"political action,"</i> narrowly defined), we do not
reject the need to fight for political reforms or specific
political issues. However, we see such action as being based
on collective working class <b>direct action</b> organised around
combative organs of working class self-management and power
rather than the individualistic act of placing a cross on a
piece of power once every few years and letting leaders fight
your struggles for you.</p>

<a name="sech214"><h2>H.2.14 Are anarchist organisations <i>"ineffective,"</i> <i>"elitist"</i> or <i>"downright bizarre"</i>?
</h2></a>

<p>
Marxists often accuse anarchist organisations of being <i>"elitist"</i> 
or <i>"secret."</i> Pat Stack (of the British SWP) ponders the history 
of anarchist organisation (at least the SWP version of that history):
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"how otherwise [than Leninist vanguard political parties] do 
revolutionaries organise? Apart from the serious efforts of 
anarcho-syndicalists to grapple with this problem, anarchists 
have failed to pose any serious alternative. In as much as they 
do, they have produced either the ineffective, the elitist or 
the downright bizarre. Bakunin's organisation, the 'Alliance of 
Social Democracy', managed all three: 'The organisation had two 
overlapping forms, one secret, involving only the "intimates", 
and one public, the Alliance of Social Democracy. Even in its 
open, public mode, the alliance was to be a highly centralised 
organisation, with all decisions on the national level approved 
by the Central Committee. Since it was the real controlling body, 
the secret organisation was even more tightly centralised . . . 
with first a Central Committee, then a "central Geneva section" 
acting as the "permanent delegation of the permanent Central 
Committee", and, finally, within the central Geneva section a 
"Central Bureau", which was to be both the "executive power . . . 
composed of three, or five, or even seven members" of the secret 
organisation and the executive directory of the public 
organisation.'
</p><p>
"That this was far more elitist and less democratic than Lenin's 
model is clear."</i> [<i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i>, <b>Socialist Review</b>,
no. 246]
</blockquote></p><p>
There are, as is obvious, numerous problems with Stack's assertions.
Firstly, he makes absolutely <b>no</b> attempt to discuss anarchist
ideas on the question of revolutionary organisation. Rather, he 
prefers to present a somewhat distorted account of the ideas of 
Bakunin on the structural aspects of his organisation, ideas which 
died with him in 1876! Secondly, as Stack fails to discuss how 
anarchists (including Bakunin) see their organisations operating, 
its hard to determine whether they are <i>"ineffective"</i> or 
<i>"elitist."</i> This is hardly surprising, as they are neither.
Thirdly, even as regards his own example (Bakunin's Alliance) his
claim that it was <i>"ineffectual"</i> seems inappropriate in the 
extreme. Whether it was <i>"elitist"</i> or <i>"downright bizarre"</i> 
is hard
to determine, as Stack quotes an unnamed author and their quotes
from its structure. Fourthly, and ironically for Stack, Lenin's
<i>"model"</i> shared many of the same features as those of Bakunin's!
</p><p>
Significantly, Stack fails to discuss any of the standard anarchist 
ideas on how revolutionaries should organise. As we discuss in 
<a href="secJ3.html">section J.3</a>, there are three main types: 
the <i>"synthesis"</i> federation, the <i>"class struggle"</i> 
federation and those inspired by the <i>"Platform."</i> In the 
twenty-first century, these are the main types of anarchist 
organisation. As such, it would be extremely hard to argue that 
these are <i>"elitist,"</i> <i>"ineffective"</i> or <i>"downright 
bizarre."</i> What these organisational ideas have in common is 
the vision of an anarchist organisation as a federation of 
autonomous self-managed groups which work with others as equals. 
How can directly democratic organisations, which influence others 
by the force of their ideas and by their example, be <i>"elitist"</i>
or <i>"downright bizarre"</i>? Little wonder, then, that Stack used 
an example from 1868 to attack anarchism in the twenty-first 
century! If he actually presented an honest account of anarchist 
ideas then his claims would quickly be seen to be nonsense. And 
as for the claim of being <i>"ineffective,"</i> well, given that 
Stack's article is an attempt to combat anarchist influence in the 
anti-globalisation movement it would suggest the opposite.
</p><p>
Even looking at the example of Bakunin's Alliance, we can see
evidence that Stack's summary is simply wrong. It seems 
strange for Stack to claim that the Alliance was <i>"ineffective."</i> 
After all, Marx spent many years combating it (and Bakunin's 
influence) in the First International. Indeed, so effective 
was it that anarchist ideas dominated most sections of that 
organisation, forcing Marx to move the General Council to 
America to ensure that it did not fall into the hands of the 
anarchists (i.e. of the majority). Moreover, it was hardly 
<i>"ineffective"</i> when it came to building the International. As 
Marxist Paul Thomas notes, <i>"the International was to prove 
capable of expanding its membership only at the behest of the
Bakuninists [sic!]"</i> and <i>"[w]herever the International was 
spreading, it was doing so under the mantle of Bakuninism."</i> 
[<b>Karl Marx and the Anarchists</b>, p. 315 and p. 319] Even 
Engels had to admit that the Spanish section was <i>"one of
finest organisations within the International</i> (which the
Spanish Marxists had to <i>"rescue from the influence of the 
Alliance humbugs"</i>). [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 23, p. 292]
</p><p>
Yet Stack considers this as an example of an <i>"ineffective"</i> organisation!
But, to be fair, this seems to have been a common failing with Marxists.
In 1877, for example, Engels showed his grasp of things by saying <i>"we may
safely predict that the new departure [in Spain] will not come from these 
'anarchist' spouters, but from the small body of intelligent and energetic 
workmen who, in 1872, remained true to the International."</i> [Marx, Engels, 
Lenin, <b>Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 163] In reality, the 
Spanish Socialist Party was bureaucratic and reformist to the core while
it was the anarchists who made the Spanish labour movement the most dynamic
and revolutionary in the world. 
</p><p>
As regards Stack's summary of Bakunin's organisation goes, we
must note that Stack is quoting an unnamed source on Bakunin's 
views on this subject. We, therefore, have no way of evaluating 
whether this is a valid summary of Bakunin's ideas on this matter. 
As we indicate elsewhere (see 
<a href="secJ3.html#secj37">section J.3.7</a>) Leninist summaries 
of Bakunin's ideas on secret organising usually leave a lot to be 
desired (by usually leaving a lot out or quoting out of context 
certain phrases). As such, and given the total lack of relevance
of this model for anarchists since the 1870s, we will not bother
to discuss this summary. Simply put, it is a waste of time to 
discuss an organisational model which no modern anarchist supports.
</p><p>
Moreover, there is a key way  in which Bakunin's ideas on this issue 
were far <b>less</b> <i>"elitist"</i> and <b>more</b> <i>"democratic"</i> 
than Lenin's model. Simply, Bakunin always stressed that his organisation 
<i>"rules out any idea of dictatorship and custodial control."</i> [<b>Michael 
Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 172] The <i>"main purpose and task of 
the organisation,"</i> he argued, would be to <i>"help the people to achieve 
self-determination."</i> It would <i>"not threaten the liberty of the people 
because it is free from all official character"</i> and <i>"not placed above 
the people like state power."</i> Its programme <i>"consists of the fullest 
realisation of the liberty of the people"</i> and its influence is <i>"not 
contrary to the free development and self-determination of the people, or 
its organisation from below according to its own customs and instincts 
because it acts on the people only by the natural personal influence 
of its members who are not invested with any power."</i> Thus the
revolutionary group would be the <i>"helper"</i> of the masses, with an 
"organisation within the people itself."</i> [quoted by Michael Confino, 
<b>Daughter of a Revolutionary</b>, p. 259, p. 261, p. 256 and p. 261] 
The revolution itself would see <i>"an end to all masters and to 
domination of every kind, and the free construction of popular life 
in accordance with popular needs, not from above downward, as in the 
state, but from below upward, by the people themselves, dispensing with 
all governments and parliaments - a voluntary alliance of agricultural 
and factory worker associations, communes, provinces, and nations; and, 
finally, . . . universal human brotherhood triumphing on the ruins of 
all the states."</i> [Bakunin, <b>Statism and Anarchy</b>, p. 33] In 
other words, Bakunin saw the social revolution in terms of popular 
participation and control, <b>not</b> the seizing of power by a 
"revolutionary" party or group. 
</p><p>
Unlike Lenin, Bakunin did not confuse party power with people power. 
His organisation, for all it faults (and they were many), did not 
aim to take power in the name of the working class and exercise
power through a centralised, top-down state. Rather, its would be 
based on the <i>"natural influence"</i> of its members within
mass organisations. The influence of anarchists would, therefore,
be limited to the level by which their specific ideas were accepted
by other members of the same organisations after discussion and
debate. As regards the nature of the labour movement, we must point 
out that Bakunin provided the same <i>"serious"</i> answer as the 
anarcho-syndicalists - namely, revolutionary labour unionism.
As we discuss in <a href="secH2.html#sech28">section H.2.8</a>, 
Bakunin's ideas on this matter are nearly identical to those of 
the syndicalists Stack praises.
</p><p>
As noted, however, no anarchist group has reproduced the internal
structure of the Alliance, which means that Stack's point is simply
historical in nature. Sadly this is not the case with his own politics
as the ideas he attacks actually parallel Lenin's model in many ways 
(although, as indicated above, how Bakunin's organisation would 
function in the class struggle was fundamentally different, as Lenin's 
party sought power for itself). Given that Stack is proposing Lenin's 
model as a viable means of organising revolutionaries, it is useful 
to summarise it. We shall take as an example two statements issued 
by the Second World Congress of the Communist International in 1920 
under the direction of Lenin. These are <i>"Twenty-One Conditions of 
Communism"</i> and <i>"Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the 
Proletarian Revolution."</i> These two documents provide a vision of 
Leninist organisation which is fundamentally elitist.
</p><p>
Lenin's <i>"model"</i> is clear from these documents. The parties adhering 
to the Communist International had to have two overlapping forms, one 
legal (i.e. public) and another <i>"illegal"</i> (i.e. secret). It was
the <i>"duty"</i> of these parties <i>"to create everywhere a parallel 
illegal organisational apparatus."</i> [<b>Proceedings and Documents 
of the Second Congress 1920</b>, vol. 2, p. 767] Needless to say, this 
illegal organisation would be the real controlling body, as it would 
have to be made up of trusted communists and could only be even more 
tightly centralised than the open party as its members could only be 
appointed from above by the illegal organisation's central committee. 
To stress that the <i>"illegal"</i> (i.e. secret) organisation
controlled the party, the Communist International agreed that that 
<i>"[i]n countries where the bourgeoisie . . . is still in power, the 
Communist parties must learn to combine legal and illegal activity in 
a planned way. However, the legal work must be placed under the actual 
control of the illegal party at all times."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
vol. 1, p. 198-9] In this, it should be noted, the Leninists followed
Marx's in 1850 comments (which he later rejected) on the need to 
<i>"establish an independent secret and public organisation of the 
workers' party."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 10, p. 282] 
</p><p>
Even in its open, public mode, the Communist Party was to be a highly 
centralised organisation, with all decisions on the national level 
made by the Central Committee. The parties must be as centralised as 
possible, with a party centre which has strength and authority and 
is equipped with the most comprehensive powers. Also, the party 
press and other publications, and all party publishing houses, must 
be subordinated to the party presidium. This applied on an international 
level as well, with the decisions of the Communist International's 
Executive Committee binding on all parties belonging to it. 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, vol. 2, p. 769] Moreover, <i>"Communist cells of 
all kinds must be subordinate to each other in a strictly hierarchical 
order of rank as precisely as possible."</i> Democratic centralism 
itself was fundamentally hierarchical, with its <i>"basic principles"</i> 
being that <i>"the higher bodies shall be elected by the lower, that 
all instructions of the higher bodies are categorically and necessarily 
binding on the lower."</i> Indeed, <i>"there shall be a strong party 
centre whose authority is universally and unquestionably recognised
for all leading party comrades in the period between congresses."</i> 
Any <i>"advocacy of broad 'autonomy' for the local party organisations 
only weakens the ranks of the Communist Party"</i> and <i>"favours 
petty-bourgeois, anarchist and disruptive tendencies."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
vol. 1, p. 198]
</p><p>
It seems strange for Stack to argue that Bakunin's ideas
(assuming he presents an honest account of them, of course) 
were <i>"far more elitist and less democratic than Lenin's model"</i> 
as they obviously were not. Indeed, the similarities between Stack's 
summary of Bakunin's ideas and Leninist theory are striking. The 
Leninist party has the same division between open and secret (legal
and illegal) structures as in Bakunin's, the same centralism and 
top-down nature. Lenin argued that <i>"[i]n all countries, even in
those that are freest, most 'legal,' and most 'peaceful' . . .
it is now absolutely indispensable for every Communist Party to
systematically combine legal and illegal work, legal and illegal
organisation."</i> He stressed that <i>"[o]nly the most reactionary
philistine, no matter what cloak of fine 'democratic' and pacifist 
phrases he may don, will deny this fact or the conclusion that of 
necessity follows from it, viz., that all legal Communist parties 
must immediately form illegal organisations for the systematic 
conduct of illegal work."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 31, 
p. 195] This was due to the threat of state repression, which also faced
Bakunin's Alliance. As Murray Bookchin argued, <i>"Bakunin's emphasis 
on conspiracy and secrecy can be understood only against the social
background of Italy, Spain, and Russia the three countries in
Europe where conspiracy and secrecy were matters of sheer survival."</i> 
[<b>The Spanish Anarchists</b>, p. 24]
</p><p>
For anarchists, the similarity in structure between Bakunin and Lenin
is no source of embarrassment. Rather, we argue that it is due to
a similarity in political conditions in Russia and <b>not</b> similarities
in political ideas. If we look at Bakunin's ideas on social revolution
and the workers' movement we see a fully libertarian perspective
- of a movement from the bottom-up, based on the principles of
direct action, self-management and federalism. Anarchists since 
his death have applied <b>these</b> ideas to the specific anarchist 
organisation as well, rejecting the non-libertarian elements of 
Bakunin's ideas which Stack correctly (if somewhat hypocritically 
and dishonestly) denounces. All in all, Stack has shown himself to 
be a hypocrite or, at best, a <i>"most reactionary philistine"</i> (to
use Lenin's choice expression).
</p><p>
In addition, it would be useful to evaluate the effectiveness 
of Stack's Leninist alternative. Looking at the outcome of the 
Russian Revolution, we can only surmise that it is not very
effective. This was because its goal is meant to be a socialist
society based on soviet democracy. Did the Russian Revolution 
actually result in such a society? Far from it. The Kronstadt 
revolt was repressed in 1921 because it demanded soviet democracy. 
Nor was this an isolated example. The Bolsheviks had been 
disbanding soviets with elected non-Bolshevik majorities since 
early 1918 (i.e. <b>before</b> the start of the Civil War) and 
by 1920 leading Bolsheviks were arguing that dictatorship of the
proletariat could only be expressed by means of the dictatorship
of the party. Clearly, the Bolshevik method is hardly 
<i>"effective"</i> in the sense of achieving its stated 
goals. Nor was it particularly effective before the revolution
either. During the 1905 revolution, the Bolsheviks opposed the
councils of workers' deputies (soviets) which had been formed
and gave them an ultimatum: either accept the programme of the 
Bolsheviks or else disband! The soviets ignored them. In February 
1917 the Bolshevik party opposed the actions that produced the 
revolution which overthrew the Tsar. Simply put, the one event
that validates the Bolshevik model is the October Revolution 
of 1917 and even that failed (see <a href="secH5.html#sech512">section H.5.12</a>).
</p><p>
Moreover, it backfires on his own politics. The very issues which 
Stack raises as being <i>"elitist"</i> in Bakunin (secret and open 
organisation, centralisation, top-down decision making) are shared 
by Lenin. Given that no other anarchist organisation has ever 
followed the Alliance structure (and, indeed, it is even doubtful 
the Alliance followed it!), it makes a mockery of the scientific 
method to base a generalisation on an exception rather than the 
norm (indeed, the only exception). For Stack to use Bakunin's 
ideas on this issue as some kind of evidence against anarchism 
staggers belief. Given that anarchists reject Bakunin's ideas on 
this subject while Leninists continue to subscribe to Lenin's, it 
is very clear that Stack is being extremely hypocritical in this matter.
</p><p>
One of Stack's comrades in the SWP highlighted another of the great 
Marxist myths about anarchist organisation when he stated categorically
that <i>"[a]ll the major anarchist organisations in history have been 
centralised but have operated in secret."</i> As evidence they echo 
Stack's distortions of Bakunin's Alliance before stating that the 
<i>"anarchist organisation inside the Spanish C.N.T., the F.A.I., was 
centralised and secret. A revolutionary party thrives on open debate and 
common struggle with wider groups of workers."</i> [<b>Socialist Worker</b>, 
no. 1714, 16/09/2000]
</p><p>
It is just as well it stated <i>"all the major anarchist organisations"</i> as it 
is vague enough to allow the denial of obvious counter-examples as not being "major"
enough. We can point to hundreds of anarchist organisations that are/were not 
secret. For example, the Italian Anarchist Union (UAI) was a non-secret organisation. 
Given that it had around 20,000 members in 1920, we wonder by what criteria the SWP 
excludes it from being a <i>"major anarchist organisation"</i>? After all, estimates 
of the membership of the F.A.I. vary from around 6,000 to around 30,000. Bakunin's 
"Alliance" amounted to, at most, under 100. In terms of size, the UAI was 
equal to the F.A.I. and outnumbered the "Alliance" considerably. Why 
was the UAI not a <i>"major anarchist organisation"</i>? Then there are 
the French anarchist organisations. In the 1930, the <b>Union Anarchiste</b>
had over 2,000 members, an influential newspaper and organised many successful
public meetings and campaigns (see David Berry's <b>A History of the French
Anarchist movement, 1917-1945</b> for details). Surely that counts as a <i>"major
anarchist organisation"</i>? Today, the French Anarchist Federation has a weekly 
newspaper and groups all across France as well as in Belgium. That is not secret 
and is one of the largest anarchist organisations in the world. We wonder why the 
SWP excluded such examples? Needless to say, all of these were based on federal
structures rather than centralised ones.
</p><p>
As for the Spanish Anarchists, the common Leninist notion that it was centralised 
seems to flow from Felix Morrow's assertion that <i>"Spanish Anarchism had in the 
FAI a highly centralised party apparatus through which it maintained control of the 
CNT."</i> [<b>Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain</b>, p. 100] Like the
SWP, no attempt was made to provide evidence to support this claim. It undoubtedly
flows from the dogmatic Leninist belief that centralism is automatically more
efficient than federalism combined with the fact that the Leninists could not
take over the CNT. However, in reality, the FAI neither controlled the CNT nor
was it centralised or secret.
</p><p>
The FAI - the Iberian Anarchist Federation - was a federation of regional 
federations (including the Portuguese Anarchist Union). These regional 
federations, in turn, were federations of highly autonomous anarchist 
affinity groups. <i>"Like the CNT,"</i> noted Murray Bookchin, <i>"the 
FAI was structured along confederal lines . . . Almost as a matter of 
second nature, dissidents were permitted a considerable amount of freedom 
in voicing and publishing material against the leadership and established 
policies."</i> The FAI <i>"was more loosely jointed as an organisation 
than many of its admirers and critics seem to recognise. It has no 
bureaucratic apparatus, no membership cards or dues, and no headquarters
with paid officials, secretaries, and clerks. . . They jealously guarded 
the autonomy of their affinity groups from the authority of higher organisational
bodies - a state of mind hardly conducive to the development of a tightly knit, 
vanguard organisation . . . It had no official program by which all <b>faistas</b> 
could mechanically guide their actions."</i> [<b>The Spanish Anarchists</b>, 
pp. 197-8] So regardless of Morrow's claims, the FAI was a federation of autonomous 
affinity groups in which, as one member put it, <i>"[e]ach FAI group thought 
and acted as it deemed fit, without bothering about what the others might be 
thinking or deciding . . . they had no . . . opportunity or jurisdiction . . . 
to foist a party line upon the grass-roots."</i> [Francisco Carrasquer,
quoted by Stuart Christie, <b>We, the Anarchists!</b>, p. 28] 
</p><p>
Was the F.A.I. a "secret" organisation? When it was founded in 1927, Spain 
was under the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and so it was illegal and secret 
by necessity. As Stuart Christie correctly notes, <i>"[a]s an organisation 
publicly committed to the overthrow of the dictatorship, the F.A.I. functioned, 
from 1927 to 1931, as an illegal rather than a secret organisation. From the 
birth of the Republic in 1931 onwards, the F.A.I. was simply an organisation 
which, until 1937, refused to register as an organisation as required by 
Republican Law."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 24] Thus it was illegal rather than 
secret. As one anarchist militant asked, <i>"[i]f it was secret, how come I 
was able to attend F.A.I. meetings without ever having joined or paid dues 
to the 'specific' organisation?"</i> [Francesco Carrasquer, quoted by Christie, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 24] The organisation held public meetings, attended by 
thousands, as well as journals and newspapers. Its most notable members, such 
as Durruti, hardly kept their affiliation secret. Moreover, given the periods 
of repression suffered by the Spanish libertarian movement throughout its 
history (including being banned and forced underground during the Republic) 
being an illegal organisation made perfect sense. The SWP, like most Marxists, 
ignore historical context and so mislead the reader. 
</p><p>
Did the F.A.I. ignore <i>"open debate and common struggle."</i> No, of 
course not. The members of the F.A.I. were also members of the C.N.T. 
The C.N.T. was based around mass assemblies in which all members 
could speak. It was here that members of the F.A.I. took part in 
forming C.N.T. policy along with other C.N.T. members. Anarchists 
in the C.N.T. who were not members of the F.A.I. indicate this. Jose 
Borras Casacarosa noted that <i>"[o]ne has to recognise that the F.A.I. 
did not intervene in the C.N.T. from above or in an authoritarian manner 
as did other political parties in the unions. It did so from the base 
through militants . . . the decisions which determined the course 
taken by the C.N.T. were taken under constant pressure from these 
militants."</i> Jose Campos states that F.A.I. militants <i>"tended 
to reject control of confederal committees and only accepted them 
on specific occasions . . . if someone proposed a motion in assembly, 
the other F.A.I. members would support it, usually successfully. It 
was the individual standing of the faista in open assembly."</i> [quoted 
by Stuart Christie, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 62] It should be remembered that 
at union conferences and congresses the <i>"delegates, whether or not 
they were members of the FAI, were presenting resolutions adopted by 
their unions at open membership meetings. Actions taken at the 
congress had to be reported back to their unions at open meetings, 
and given the degree of union education among the members, it was 
impossible for delegates to support personal, non-representative 
positions."</i> [Juan Gomez Casas, <b>Anarchist Organisation: The 
History of the FAI</b>, p. 121]
</p><p>
Significantly, it should be noted that Morrow was re-cycling an argument 
which was produced by the reformist wing of the CNT in the 1930s after it 
had lost influence in the union rank-and-file (<i>"The myth of the FAI as 
conqueror and ruler of the CNT was created basically by the <b>Treinistas</b>."</i> 
[Juan Gomez Casas, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 134] ). That a Trotskyist should 
repeat the arguments of failed bureaucrats in the CNT is not too surprising 
in that Trotskyism itself is simply the ideology of Russian failed bureaucrats.
</p><p>
Clearly, the standard Marxist account of anarchist organisations leave a lot 
to be desired. They concentrate on just one or two examples (almost always 
Bakunin's Alliance or the FAI, usually both) and ignore the vast bulk of 
anarchist organisations. Their accounts of the atypical organisations they 
do pick is usually flawed, particularly in the case of the FAI where they 
simply do not understand the historic context nor how it actually did 
organise. Finally, somewhat ironically, in their attacks on Bakunin's 
ideas they fail to note the similarities between his ideas and Lenin's 
and, equally significantly, the key areas in which they differ. All in 
all, anarchists would argue that it is Leninist ideas on the vanguard 
party which are <i>"elitist,"</i> <i>"ineffective"</i> and <i>"downright 
bizarre."</i> As we discuss in <a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>, the 
only thing the Leninist "revolutionary"</i> party is effective for is 
replacing one set of bosses with a new set (the leaders of the party).
</p>

</body>
</html>