|
|
Index | What's New | Links | Introduction | Bibliography
 PDF
version of Section H.
H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?
Many people involved in politics will soon discover that Marxist groups (particularly
Leninist and Trotskyist ones) organise "debates" about anarchism.
These meetings are usually entitled "Marxism and Anarchism"
and are usually organised after anarchists have been active in the
area or have made the headlines somewhere.
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 "Marxism
and Anarchism" 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 real 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.
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 in current anti-globalisation
movement), 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 "Anarchism
and Marxism" contains a few replies to such articles and other
Marxist diatribes on anarchism). 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 "acted with that shocking
lack of honesty which was characteristic of all 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." [A Short History of Anarchism, p. 132] As
the reader will discover, this summary has not lost its relevance
today. If they read Marxist "critiques" of anarchism they 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.
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, closely followed by anarchism being in favour of "small-scale"
production). We will not bother to refute the more silly Marxist assertions
(such as anarchists are against organisation or are not "socialists").
Instead, we will concentrate on the more substantial and most commonly
repeated ones. Of course, many of these distortions and misrepresentations
coincide and flow into each other, but there are many which can be
considered distinct issues and will be discussed in turn.
Moreover, Marxists make many major and minor distortions of anarchist
theory in passing. For example, Engels asserted in his infamous diatribe
"The Bakuninists at work" that Bakunin "[a]s early as September
1870 (in his Lettres a un francais [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." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism
and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 141] In fact, the truth is totally
different.
Bakunin does, of course, reject "centralised leadership"
as it would be "necessarily very circumscribed, very short-sighted,
and its limited perception cannot, therefore, penetrate the depth
and encompass the whole complex range of popular life." However,
it is a falsehood to state that he denies the need for co-ordination
of struggles and federal organisations from the bottom up. As he puts
it, the revolution must "foster the self-organisation of the masses
into autonomous bodies, federated from the bottom upwards." With
regards to the peasants, he thinks they will "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." The
peasants would be "freely organised from the bottom up." ["Letters
to a Frenchman on the present crisis", Bakunin on Anarchism,
p. 196, p. 206 and p. 207] In this he repeated his earlier arguments
concerning social revolution -- arguments that Engels was well aware
of. In other words, Engels deliberately misrepresented Bakunin's political
ideas.
Similarly, we find Trotsky asserting in 1937 that anarchists are
"willing to replace Bakunin's patriarchal 'federation of free communes'
by the more modern federation of free soviets." [Stalinism
and Bolshevism] 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"). As he put it,
"the federative Alliance of all working men's associations . .
. will constitute the Commune" and "revolution everywhere must
be created by the people, and supreme control must always belong to
the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial
associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary
delegation." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 170
and p. 172] The similarities with workers councils are clear. Little
wonder historian Paul Avrich summarised as follows:
"As early as the 1860's and 1870's, the followers of
Proudhon and Bakunin in the First International were
proposing the formation of workers' councils designed
both as a weapon of class struggle against capitalists
and as the structural basis of the future libertarian
society." [The Russian Anarchists, p. 73]
As for the charge of supporting "patriarchal" communes, nothing
could be further from the truth. In his discussion of the Russian
peasant commune (the mir) Bakunin argued that "patriarchalism"
was one of its "three dark features," indeed "the main historical
evil . . . against which we are obliged to struggle with all our might."
[Statism and Anarchy, p. 206 and pp. 209-10]
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
(and so much more "modern" than Marxist conceptions), 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 "dark" 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.
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 "blind destructiveness"
and yet quotes more from Bakunin's pre-anarchist works (as well as
Russian nihilists) than Bakunin's anarchist works to prove his claim.
[Karl Marx and the Anarchists, pp. 288-90] Similarly, he claims
that Bakunin "defended the federes of the Paris Commune
of 1871 on the grounds that they were strong enough to dispense with
theory altogether," yet his supporting quote does not, in fact
say this. [Op. Cit., 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
"Procrustean bed" as no government could "embrace the infinite
multiplicity and diversity of the real aspirations, wishes and needs
whose sum total constitutes the collective will of a people."
He explicitly contrasted the Marxist system of "want[ing] to impose
science upon the people" with the anarchist desire "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 imposed upon the ignorant masses by a few 'superior'
minds." [The Political Theory of Bakunin, p. 300] A clear
misreading of Bakunin's argument but one which fits nicely into Marxist
preconceptions of Bakunin and anarchism in general.
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 wrote one of the most
inaccurate diatribes against anarchism the world has had the misfortunate
to see (namely "Anarchy in the UK?" which was published in
issue no. 246 of Socialist Review). 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. For example, Stack asserts that Bakunin "claimed a purely
'instinctive socialism.'" However, the truth is different and
this quote from Bakunin is one by him comparing himself and Marx in
the 1840s!
In fact, the anarchist Bakunin argued that "instinct as
a weapon is not sufficient to safeguard the proletariat against the
reactionary machinations of the privileged classes," as instinct
"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." [The Political Philosophy
of Bakunin, p. 215] Bakunin saw the process of class struggle
as the means of transforming instinct into conscious thought. As he
put it, the "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." This is done by "a
single path, that of emancipation through practical action,"
by "workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses,"
of "collective struggle of the workers against the bosses."
This would be complemented by socialist organisations "propagandis[ing]
its principles." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 102, p. 103 and
p. 109] Clearly, Stack is totally distorting Bakunin's ideas on the
subject.
This technique of quoting Bakunin when he spoke about (or when wrote
in) his pre-anarchist days in the 1840s, i.e. nearly 20 years before
he became an anarchist, or from Proudhon's posthumously published
work on property (in which Proudhon saw small-scale property as a
bulwark against state tyranny) to attack anarchism is commonplace.
As such, 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.
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 so 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 anarchists
rather than Proudhonists, Bakuninists, Kropotkinists, or after any
other person. As Malatesta argued in 1876 (the year of Bakunin's death)
"[w]e follow ideas and not men, and rebel against this habit of
embodying a principle in a man." [Life and Ideas, p. 198]
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 when he
argued that:
"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." [The Chomsky Reader, pp. 29-30]
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.
We develop the ideas and analyses of these pioneers of the anarchist
ideal, reject the rubbish and embrace the good, 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, "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." [A Short History
of Anarchism, 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.
However, the typical Marxist approach does have its benefits from
a political perspective. As Albert Meltzer pointed out, "[i]t is
very difficult for Marxist-Leninists to make an objective criticism
of Anarchism, as such, because by its nature it undermines all the
suppositions basic to Marxism. If Marxism is held out to be indeed
the basic working class philosophy, and the proletariat cannot
owe its emancipation to anyone but itself, it is hard to go back on
it and say that the working class is not yet ready to dispense with
authority placed over it. Marxism therefore normally tries to refrain
from criticising anarchism as such -- unless driven to doing so, when
it exposes its own authoritarian . . . and concentrates its attacks
not on anarchism, but on anarchists." [Anarchism:
Arguments for and Against, p. 37] Needless to say, this technique
is the one usually applied by Marxists (although, we must stress that
often their account of the ideas of Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin
are so distorted that they fail even to do this!).
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.
As such, to concentrate on the ideas of a few "leaders" misses
the point totally. Ideas change and develop and anarchism has changed
as well. While it 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.
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!
According to many Marxists anarchists either reject the idea of defending
a revolution or think that it is not necessary.
The Trotskyists of Workers' Power present a typical Marxist
account of what they consider as anarchist ideas on this subject:
"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?
"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.
"The anarchists are rejecting something which is necessary if
we are to beat the capitalists and have a chance of developing a
classless society." ["What's wrong with anarchism?",
World Revolution: PragueS26 2000, pp. 12-13, p. 13]
It would be simple to quote Malatesta on this issue and leave it
at that. As he argued in 1891, some people "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 freedom of those who might feel the need to be rulers
and property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting our ideas."
[Anarchy, p. 41] Pretty much common sense, so you would think!
Sadly, this appears to not be the case. As Malatesta pointed out 30
years latter, the followers of Bolshevism "are incapable of conceiving
freedom and of respecting for all human beings the dignity they expect,
or should expect, from others. If one speaks of freedom they immediately
accuse one of wanting to respect, or at least tolerate, the freedom
to oppress and exploit one's fellow beings." [Life and Ideas,
p. 145] 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 does, then it signifies the end of the revolution.
The argument by Workers' Power is very common with the Leninist
left and contains numerous fallacies and so we shall base our discussion
on it. This discussion, of necessity, implies three issues. Firstly,
we have to show that anarchists have always seen the necessity of
defending a revolution. This shows that the anarchist opposition to
the "democratic workers' state" (or "dictatorship of the
proletariat") 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 "state" and show what they have in common and how they differ.
Thirdly, we must summarise why anarchists oppose the idea of a "workers'
state" in order for the real reasons why anarchists oppose
it to be understood. Each issue will be discussed in turn.
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 "dictatorship
of the proletariat" (see section H.1.1
for details) also thought a revolution would need to defend itself.
In his words:
"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." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 142]
And:
"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." [Op. Cit., vol. 1, pp. 155-6]
Malatesta agreed, arguing for the "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."
The workers must "take possession of the factories" and "federate
amongst themselves" and only "the people in arms, in possession
of the land, the factories and all the natural wealth" could defend
a revolution [Life and Ideas, p. 166, p. 165 and p. 170] Alexander
Berkman concurred: "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." [ABC of Anarchism, p. 82] Emma Goldman clearly
and unambiguously stated that she had "always insisted that an
armed attack on the Revolution must be met with armed force" and
that "an armed counter-revolutionary and fascist attack can be
met in no way except by an armed defence." [Vision on Fire,
p. 222 and p. 217]
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 C.N.T militias during the Spanish). As such, any assertion
that anarchism rejects the necessity of defending a revolution are
simply false.
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 "state" is "an apparatus
designed to enable one class to rule another," the anarchist definition
is somewhat different. Anarchists, of course, do not deny that the
modern state is (to use Malatesta's excellent expression) "the
bourgeoisie's servant and gendarme." [Anarchy, p.
20] 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.
As Kropotkin put, the "state idea . . . includes the existence
of a power situated above society . . . a territorial concentration
as well as the concentration of many functions of the life of societies
in the hands of a few." [Selected Writings on Anarchism and
Revolution, p. 213] This was the case with representative democracy:
"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. . ." [Kropotkin,
Words of a Rebel, p. 143]
This meant that the "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."
[Op. Cit., p. 125] 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:
"[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."
[Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 20]
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 exclude 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. If it was simply a question
of consolidating a revolution and its self-defence then there would
be no argument:
"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.
"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.
"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." [Malatesta, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2,
pp. 38-9]
The question is, therefore, one of who "seizes power"
-- will it be the mass of the population or will it be a party claiming
to represent the mass of the population. 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 "democratic workers'
state" 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).
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 the "the will of the majority." This particular
perspective was clearly a lesson they learned from their experiences
during the Russian Revolution.
As noted in section H.1.2, Lenin
was arguing in 1920 that "the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot
be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class,
because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one
of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded,
and so corrupted in parts . . . that an organisation taking in the
whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship.
It can be exercised only by a vanguard . . . Such is the basic mechanism
of the dictatorship of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the
essentials of transitions from capitalism to communism . . . for the
dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian
organisation." [Collected Works, vol. 32, p. 21]
This argument, as can be seen, was considered of general validity
and, moreover, was merely stating mainstream Bolshevik ideology. It
was repeated in March 1923 by the Central Committee of the Communist
Party in a statement issued to mark the 25th anniversary of the founding
of the Communist Party. This statement summarised the lessons gained
from the Russian revolution. It stated that "the party of the Bolsheviks
proved able to stand out fearlessly against the vacillations within
its own class, vacillations which, with the slightest weakness in
the vanguard, could turn into an unprecedented defeat for the proletariat."
Vacillations, of course, are expressed by workers' democracy. Little
wonder the statement rejects it: "The dictatorship of the working
class finds its expression in the dictatorship of the party."
["To the Workers of the USSR" in G. Zinoviev, History of
the Bolshevik Party, p. 213, p. 214] It should be noted that this
Central Committee included Trotsky who, in the same year, was stating
that "[i]f there is one question which basically not only does
not require revision but does not so much as admit the thought of
revision, it is the question of the dictatorship of the Party."
[Leon Trotsky Speaks, p. 158]
Needless to say, Workers' Power (like most Trotskyists) blame
the degeneration of the Russian revolution on the Civil War and its
isolation. However, as these statements make clear, the creation of
a party dictatorship was not seen in these terms. Rather, it was considered
a necessity to suppress democracy and replace it by party rule. Indeed,
as noted in section H.1.2, Trotsky
was still arguing in 1937 for the "objective necessity" for
the "dictatorship of a party" due to the "heterogeneity"
of the working class. [Writings 1936-37, pp. 513-4] Moreover,
as we discuss in detail in the appendix on "What
happened during the Russian Revolution?", the Bolshevik undermining
of working class autonomy and democracy started well before
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.
This is why anarchists reject the idea of a "democratic workers'
state." 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 "workers' state" means, in fact, the seizure of power
by the party. This, we must stress, naturally follows from the idea
of the state. It is designed for minority rule and excludes, by its
very nature, mass participation. As can be seen, this aspect of the
state is one which the leading lights of Bolshevik agreed with. Little
wonder, then, that in practice the Bolshevik regime suppressed of
any form of democracy which hindered the power of the party (see the
appendix on "What happened during the Russian
Revolution?"). Maurice Brinton sums up the issue well when he
argued that "'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." [The Bolsheviks
and Workers' Control, p. xiv]
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 "Republic-State" and there is "the system of
the Republic-Commune, the Republic-Federation, i.e. the system of
Anarchism. This is the politics of the Social Revolution, which
aims at the abolition of the State and establishment of the
economic, entirely free organisation of the people -- organisation
from bottom to top by means of federation." [The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin, 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 and the defence of a revolution
(also see section H.1.3 for more discussion).
Only when working class people actually run themselves society will
a revolution be successful. For anarchists, this means that "effective
emancipation can be achieved only by the direct, widespread, and
independent action . . . of the workers themselves, grouped
. . . in their own class organisations . . . on the basis of concrete
action and self-government, helped but not governed, by revolutionaries
working in the very midst of, and not above the mass and the professional,
technical, defence and other branches." [Voline, The Unknown
Revolution, p. 197] This means that anarchists argue that the
capitalist 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 section H.1.4 for details).
For a further discussion of anarchist ideas on defending a revolution,
please consult sections I.5.14 and
J.7.6.
Of course not. Anarchists have always taken a keen interest in the class struggle,
in the organisation, solidarity and actions of working class people.
Indeed, class struggle plays a key role in anarchist theory and to
assert otherwise is simply to lie about anarchism. Sadly, Marxists
have been known to make such an assertion.
For example, Pat Stack of the British SWP argued that anarchists
"dismiss . . . the importance of the collective nature of change"
and so "downplays the centrality of the working class" in the
revolutionary process. This, he argues, means that for anarchism the
working class "is not the key to change." He stresses that
for Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin "revolutions were not about
. . . collective struggle or advance." Indeed, that anarchism
"despises the collectivity." Amazingly he argues that for 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."
Therefore, "[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." ["Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist
Review, no. 246] Needless to say, he makes the usual exception
for anarcho-syndicalists, thereby showing his total ignorance of anarchism
and syndicalism (see section H.2.8).
Indeed, these assertions 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 very 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.
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, "between the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie, an irreconcilable antagonism which results inevitably
from their respective stations in life." He stressed "war between
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is unavoidable" and would
only end with the "abolition of the bourgeoisie as a distinct class."
In order the worker to "become strong" they "must unite"
with other workers in "the union of all local and national workers'
associations into a world-wide association, the great International
Working-Men's Association." It was only "through practice
and collective experience . . . [and] 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."
There was "but a single path, that of emancipation through practical
action . . . [which] has only one meaning. It means workers' solidarity
in their struggle against the bosses. It means trades-unions, organisation,
and the federation of resistance funds." Then, "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 . . . take the revolution into its own hands . . . [and become]
an earnest international organisation of workers' associations from
all countries [which will be] capable of replacing this departing
political world of States and bourgeoisie." ["The Policy of
the International", The Basic Bakunin, pp. 97-8, p. 103
and p. 110]
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, they recur continuously throughout Bakunin's
works. For example, he argued that socialists must "[o]rganise
the city proletariat in the name of revolutionary Socialism, and in
doing this unite it into one preparatory organisation together with
the peasantry." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p.
378] Similarly, he argued that "equality" was the "aim"
of the International Workers' Association and "the organisation
of the working class its strength, the unification of the proletariat
the world over . . . its weapon, its only policy." He stressed
that "to create a people's force capable of crushing the military
and civil force of the State, it is necessary to organise the proletariat."
[quoted by K.J. Kenafick, Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx, p.
95 and p. 254]
Strikes played a very important role in Bakunin's ideas (as they
do in all revolutionary anarchist thought). He saw the strike as "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." [cited in Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and
the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism 1872-1886, pp. 216-217]
Indeed, for Bakunin, strikes train workers for social revolution
as they "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." [Bakunin, The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 384-5] Moreover, when "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." The very process of
strikes, as noted, would create the framework of a socialist society
as "strikes indicate a certain collective strength already"
and "because each strike becomes the point of departure for the
formation of new groups." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 149-50]
Thus the revolution would be "an insurrection of all the people
and the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward."
[Statism and Anarchy, p. 179]
As we argue in sections H.1.4 and
I.2.3, 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 "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." He saw the free society as being
based on "the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] 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." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,
p. 206 and p. 174] 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 within, but against, oppression and
exploitation.
The link between present and future would be labour unions (workers'
associations) created by working people in their struggle against
exploitation and oppression. These played the key role in Bakunin's
politics both as the means to abolish capitalism and the state and
as the framework of a socialist society (this support for workers'
councils predates Marxist support by five decades, incidentally).
When he became an anarchist, Bakunin always stressed that it was essential
to "[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." [quoted by Kenafick, Op. Cit.,
p. 291] Quite impressive for someone who was a founding father of
a theory which, according to Stack, downplayed the "centrality
of the working class," argued that the working class was "not
the key to change," dismissed "the importance of the collective
nature of change" as well as "collective struggle or advance"
and "despises the collectivity"! 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.
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 "the Anarchists have always advised
taking an active part in those workers' organisations which carry
on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector
-- the State." Such struggle, "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."
[Evolution and Environment, pp. 82-3] In his article on "Anarchism"
for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, he stressed that anarchists
"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."
[Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 287]
Far from denying the importance of collective class struggle, he
actually stressed it again and again. As he once wrote, "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." He argued that it was "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." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, Op. Cit., pp.
255-6] Kropotkin could not have been clearer.
Clearly, Kropotkin was well aware of the importance of popular,
mass, struggles. As he put it, anarchists "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." [Words of a Rebel, p. 203] As regards the social
revolution, he argues that "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." In order to do this, the masses have to build their
own organisation as the "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
workers' organisation exists." This meant, of course, it
was "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."
[quoted by Caroline Cahm, Op. Cit., pp. 153-4]
He saw the class struggle in terms of "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." Clearly,
the mass, collective nature of social change was not lost on Kropotkin
who pointed to a "multitude of risings of working masses and peasants"
as a positive sign. Strikes, he argued, "were once 'a war of folded
arms'" but now were "easily turning to revolt, and sometimes
taking the proportions of vast insurrections." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 144]
And Pat Stack argues that Kropotkin did not see "class conflict
as the dynamic for social change," nor "class conflict"
as "the motor of change" and the working class "not the
agent and collective struggle not the means"! Truly incredible
and a total and utter distortion of Kropotkin's ideas on the subject.
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 "stands for direct action" and that "[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." [Anarchism and
Other Essays, pp. 65-6] She places collective class struggle at
the centre of her ideas and, crucially, she sees it as the way to
create an anarchist society:
"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." [Red Emma Speaks,
pp. 309-10]
For Malatesta, "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." This
meant that anarchists "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." Anarchists must "deepen
the chasm between capitalists and wage-slaves, between rulers and
ruled; preach expropriation of private property and the destruction
of State." The new society would be organised "by means of
free association and federations of producers and consumers."
[Life and Ideas, p. 113, pp. 250-1 and p. 184] Alexander Berkman,
unsurprisingly, argued the same thing. As he put it, only "the
worst victims of present institutions" could abolish capitalism
as "it is to their own interest to abolish them. . . labour's emancipation
means at the same time the redemption of the whole of society."
He stressed that "only the right organisation of the workers
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]."
[The ABC of Anarchism, p. 44 and p. 60
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.
Also see section H.2.8 for a discussion
of the relationship of anarchism to syndicalism.
Pat Stack states that one of the "key points of divergence" between
anarchism and Marxism is that the former, "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." ["Anarchy
in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246]
Like his other "key point" (namely the rejection of class
struggle -- see last section), 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 their ideas of social life,
anarchism has always been careful to base its ideas on the current
state of society and what anarchist thinkers considered positive current
trends within society.
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 nations
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.
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. This means that 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 "yearning" 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.
For anarchists, this means questioning the assumptions of capitalist
progress. This means that 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 that capitalist
methods cannot be used for socialist ends. In our battle to democratise
and socialise the workplace, in our awareness of the importance of
collective initiatives by the direct producers in transforming their
work situation, we show that factories are not merely sites of production,
but also of reproduction -- the reproduction of a certain structure
of social relations based on the division between those who give orders
and those who take them, between those who direct and those who execute.
Equally, 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?
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 "what had
gone", although this is also precisely what the proponents of
capitalist globalisation often accuse us of. It is to put "people
before profit."
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 section J.5.11,
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
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 "yearning" for a past mode of production? We hope
not.
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. Ironically, for all his claims that anarchists ignore
"material conditions," it is Pat Stack (and others like him)
who does so in his claims against Proudhon. Stack argues that Proudhon
(like all anarchists) was "yearning for the past" when he advanced
his mutualist ideas. 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 Communist Manifesto ("[i]n countries
like France" the peasants "constitute far more than half of
the population." [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 493]). As
such, for Proudhon to incorporate the aspirations of the majority
of the population is not to "yearn for what has gone before"
but rather an extremely sensible position to take.
Therefore, it is hardly an example of Proudhon "yearning for
the past" for Stack to mention that Marx dubbed Proudhon ("the
founder of modern anarchism") as "the socialist of the small
peasant or master craftsman." It is simply unsurprising, a simple
statement of fact, as the French working classes were, at the time,
predominately small peasants or master craftsmen (or artisans). As
K. Steven Vincent points out Proudhon's "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." Indeed, "[w]hile Marx was correct
in predicting the eventual predominance of the industrial proletariat
vis-a-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." [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French
Republican Socialism, 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 "workmen's associations" would be essential
as "a protest against the wage system," the "denial of the
rule of capitalists" and for "the management of large instruments
of labour." [The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 97-8]
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 "the socialist of the small peasant or master craftsman."
Equally, it can hardly represent a desire for "what has gone before"
to tailor your ideas to the actual conditions in the country in which
you live! And Stack accuses anarchists of ignoring "material
conditions"!
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 not ignore the rise
of large-scale industry. He argued that such industry should be managed
by the workers' themselves via workers associations. As he put it,
"certain industries" required "the combined employment of
a large number of workers" and so the producer is "a collectivity."
In such industries "we have no choice" and so "it is necessary
to form an association among the workers" because "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." [Op.
Cit., pp. 215-6]
All in all, Stack is simply showing his ignorance of both Proudhon's
ideas and the society (the "material conditions") 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 "yearn[ing] for what has gone before."
After distorting Proudhon's ideas on industry, Stack does the same
with Bakunin. He asserts the following:
"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."
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 his main source, we discover Paul Avrich writing that "[i]n
1848" (i.e. nearly 20 years before Bakunin became an anarchist!)
Bakunin "spoke of the decadence of Western Europe and saw hope
in the primitive, less industrialised Slavs for the regeneration of
the Continent." [Op. Cit., p. 8] The plagiarism, again,
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!
It is, of course, simple to refute Stack's claims. We simply need
to do that which he does not, namely quote Bakunin. For someone who
thought "industrialisation was an evil," 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, "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." [The Political Philosophy of
Bakunin, p. 410] Bakunin argued that "to destroy . . . all
the instruments of labour . . . would be to condemn all humanity --
wwhich 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." Only
when workers "obtain not individual but collective property
in capital" and when capital is no longer "concentrated in
the hands of a separate, exploiting class" will they be able "to
smash the tyranny of capital." [The Basic Bakunin, pp.
90-1] He stressed that only "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." Moreover, the "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." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp.
341-2] Hardly the thoughts of someone opposed to industrialisation!
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 Guerin's comment:
"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." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin",
The Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
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. He claims that:
"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."
First, we must note the plagiarism. Stack is summarising Paul Avrich's
summary of Kropotkin's ideas. [Anarchist Portraits, 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.
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, "[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."
[Op. Cit., p. 63] Hardly "backward looking" to desire
the application of science and technology to transform the industrial
system into one based on the needs of people rather than profit!
Stack must be hoping that the reader has, like himself, not read
Kropotkin's classic work Fields, Factories and Workshops 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 classic work Field, Factories and Workshops
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.
As we discuss the fallacy that Kropotkin (or anarchists in general)
have argued for "small autonomous communities, devoted to small
scale production" in section I.3.8,
we will not do so here. Suffice to say, Kropotkin's vision was one
of federations of decentralised communities in which production would
be based on the "scattering of industries over the country -- so
as to bring the factory amidst the fields . . . agriculture . . .
combined with industry . . . to produce a combination of industrial
with agricultural work." He considered this as "surely the
next step to be made, as soon as a reorganisation of our present conditions
is possible." Indeed, he though that this step "is imposed
by the very necessity of producing for the producers themselves."
Kropotkin attempted to show, based on a detailed analysis of modern
economic statistics and trends, a vision of a decentralised, federated
communal society where "the workers" were "the real managers
of industries" and what this would imply once society was free
of capitalism. Needless to say, he did not think that this "next
step" would occur until "a reorganisation of our present conditions
[was] possible." [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow,
pp. 157-8] In other words, until 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.
He did not, as is often asserted, argue for "small-scale production"
(he still saw the need for factories, for example) but rather for
production geared to appropriate 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. "Have the factory and the workshop at the gates of
your fields and gardens and work in them," he argued. "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]." The new factories and workplaces would
be "airy and hygienic, and consequently economical, . . . in which
human life is of more account than machinery and the making of extra
profits." [Op. Cit., 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:
"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. . .
"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 economy of energy required for
the satisfaction of human needs -- is consequently the last
subject which one expects to find treated in a concrete form in
economical treatises." [Op. Cit., p. 17]
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. As noted above, current trends within capitalism have positive
(socialistic) and negative (capitalistic) aspects as capitalist industry
has not developed neutrally (it has been distorted by the twin requirements
to maintain capitalist profits and power).
For this reason Kropotkin considered the concentration of capital
(which most Marxists base their arguments for socialism on) did not,
in fact, represent an advance for socialism as it was "often nothing
but an amalgamation of capitalists for the purpose of dominating
the market, not for cheapening the technical process." [Fields,
Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 154] Indeed, by basing themselves
on the trends of capital towards big business, Leninism simply locks
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. After all, did Lenin not argue that "Socialism
is merely state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people"?
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.
All in all, anyone who claims that anarchism is "backward looking"
or "yearns for the past" simply has no idea what they are talking
about.
Pat Stack argues that "the idea that dominates anarchist thought" is
"that the state is the main enemy, rather than identifying the
state as one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed."
["Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246]] Paul
Thomas states that "Anarchists insist that the basis source of
social injustice is the state." [Karl Marx and the Anarchists,
p. 2]
On the face of it, such assertions make little sense. After all,
was not the first work by the first self-declared anarchist called
What is Property? and contain the revolutionary maxim "property
is theft"? 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:
"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 state 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 [on the other hand] maintains that it is the
state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his
capital only be the grace of the state. 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 is precisely
the social revolution." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Op. Cit.,
p. 71]
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 "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." ["Chapters
on Socialism," Principles of Political Economy, p. 376]
If the great liberal thinker could discern this aspect of anarchism,
why not Engels? After all, this vision of a social revolution
(i.e. one that combined political, social and 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
is precisely the social revolution.
In 1865, for example, we discover Bakunin arguing that anarchists
"seek the destruction of all States" in his "Program of
the Brotherhood." Yet he also argued that a member of this association
"must be socialist" and see that "labour" was the "sole
producer of social assets" and so "anyone enjoying these without
working is an exploiter of another man's labour, a thief." They
must also "understand that there is no liberty in the absence of
equality" and so the "attainment of the widest liberty"
is possible only "amid the most perfect (de jure and de facto)
political, economic and social equality." The "sole and supreme
objective" of the revolution "will be the effective political,
economic and social emancipation of the people." This was because
political liberty "is not feasible without political equality.
And the latter is impossible without economic and social equality."
This mean that the "land belongs to everyone. But usufruct of it
will belong only to those who till it with their own hands." As
regards industry, "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." He opposed sexism, for women are "equal
in all political and social rights." Ultimately, "[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, phony . . . The revolution should not
only be made for the people's sake: it should also be made by the
people and can never succeed unless it implicates all of the rural
as well as the urban masses" [No Gods, No Masters, vol.
1, pp. 134-41]
In 1868, Bakunin was arguing the same ideas. The "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" will be destroyed. The "revolution
as we understand it will . . . set about the . . . complete destruction
of the State . . . The natural and necessary upshot of that destruction"
will include the "[d]issolution of the army, magistracy, bureaucracy,
police and clergy" and "[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" as
well as the "[s]eizure of all Church and State properties."
The "federated Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute
the Commune." The people "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." [Op. Cit.,
pp. 152-6]
As these the words of a person who considered the state as the "chief
evil" or "that the state is the main enemy"? 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 "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." [Op. Cit., p. 182]
In summary, rather than seeing the state as the main evil to be
abolished, Bakunin always stressed that a revolution must be economic
and political in nature, that it must ensure political, economic
and social liberty and equality. As such, he argued for both the destruction
of the state and the expropriation of capital (an act conducted, incidentally,
by a federation of workers' associations or workers' councils). While
the apparatus of the state was being destroyed ("Dissolution of
the army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police and clergy"), capitalism
was also being uprooted and destroyed ("All productive capital
and instruments of labour . . . confiscated for the benefit of toilers
associations"). 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.
Kropotkin, unsurprisingly, argued along identical lines as Bakunin.
He stressed that "the revolution will burn on until it has accomplished
its mission: the abolition of property-owning and of the State."
This revolution, he re-iterated, would be a "mass rising up against
property and the State." Indeed, Kropotkin always stressed that
"there is one point to which all socialists adhere: the expropriation
of capital must result from the coming revolution." This mean
that "the area of struggle against capital, and against the sustainer
of capital -- government" could be one in which "various groups
can act in agreement" and so "any struggle that prepares for
that expropriation should be sustained in unanimity by all the socialist
groups, to whatever shading they belong." [Words of a Rebel,
p. 75 and p. 204] Little wonder Kropotkin wrote his famous article
"Expropriation" on this subject! As he put it:
"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." [Op. Cit., pp. 207-8]
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:
"When a workman sells his labour to an employer and knows perfectly well
that some part of the value of his produce will be unjustly taken by
the employer; when he sells it without even the slightest guarantee
of being employed so much as six consecutive months, it is a sad
mockery to call that a free contract. . . As long as three-quarters
of humanity are compelled to enter into agreements of that description,
force is of course necessary, both to enforce the supposed agreements
and to maintain such a state of things. Force -- and a great deal of
force -- is necessary to prevent the labourers from taking possession
of what they consider unjustly appropriated by the few; and force is
necessary to continually bring new 'uncivilised nations' under the
same conditions." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 69]
Little wonder he called anarchism "the no-government system of
socialism." [Op. Cit., p. 46] For Kropotkin, the "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." [Words of a Rebel, 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.
Similarly with all other anarchists. Emma Goldman, for example,
summarised for all anarchists when she argued that anarchism "stands
for . . . the liberation of the human body from the domination of
property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government."
[Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 62] Errico Malatesta in the
"Anarchist Programme" he drafted listed "Abolition of private
property" before "Abolition of government" and argued that
"the present state of society" was one in "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." It ends by arguing that anarchism wants "the
complete destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by
man" and for "expropriation of landowners and capitalists for
the benefit of all; and the abolition of government." [Life
and Ideas, 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 "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." [Anarchy,
pp. 53-4] He stressed that, for "all anarchists," it was definitely
a case that the "abolition of political power is not possible without
the simultaneous destruction of economic privilege." [Life
and Ideas, p. 158]
As Brian Morris correctly summarises:
"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." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy:
A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p, p. 40]
All in all, Marxist claims that anarchists view the state as the
"chief evil" or see the destruction of the state as the "main
idea" 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. We just recognise
that all the evils of that system must be destroyed at the same time
to ensure a social revolution rather than just a change in
who the boss is.
Another area in which Marxists misrepresent anarchism is in the assertion
that anarchists believe a completely socialist society (an ideal or
"utopian" society, in other words) can be created "overnight."
As Marxist Bertell Ollman puts it, "[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." [Bertell Ollman
(ed.), Market Socialism: The Debate among Socialists, p. 177]
This assertion, while it is common, fails to understand the anarchist
vision of revolution. We consider it a process and not an event
-- as Malatesta argued, "[b]y revolution we do not mean just the
insurrectionary act." [Life and Ideas, p. 156]
Once this is understood, the idea that anarchists think a "full
blown" anarchist society will be created "overnight" is
a fallacy. As Murray Bookchin pointed out, "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." [Post-Scarcity
Anarchism, p. 213]
Indeed, Kropotkin stressed that anarchists "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." Moreover, "[n]o
fallacy more harmful has ever been spread than the fallacy of a 'One-day
Revolution.'" [The Conquest of Bread, p. 81] Bakunin argued
that a "more or less prolonged transitional period" would "naturally
follow in the wake of the great social crisis" implied by social
revolution. [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 412] The
question, therefore, is not whether there will be a "transitional"
society after a revolution but what kind of transition will
it be.
As such, anarchists are aware that a "full blown" communist
society will not come about immediately. Rather, the creation of such
a society will be a process which the revolution will start
off. As Alexander Berkman put it, "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 means of bringing anarchy about but it is
not anarchy itself. It is to pave the road for anarchy, to establish
condition which will make a life of liberty possible." However,
the "end shapes the means" and so "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." [ABC of Anarchism, p. 81]
In his classic introduction to anarcho-communist ideas, Alexander
Berkman also acknowledged that "full blown" communism was not
likely after a successful revolution. "Of course," he argued,
"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." [Op. Cit., p. 67] Clearly, in such
circumstances "full blown" communism would be impossible and,
unsurprisingly, Berkman argues 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 "[t]here is no other way of securing economic
equality, which alone is liberty" than communist anarchism, he
also states that it is "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 . . ." Rather that dictate to the future,
Berkman argued that his "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
o |
