|
|
Index | What's New | Links | Introduction | Bibliography
 PDF
version of Section I.
I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?
No, far from it. There can be no such thing as a "blueprint" for a
free society. All we can do here is indicate those general features
that we believe a free society must have in order to qualify
as truly libertarian. For example, a society based on hierarchical
management in the workplace (like capitalism) would not be libertarian
and would soon see private or public states developing to protect
the power of those at the top hierarchical positions ("Anarchy
without socialism. . . [is] impossible to us, for in such case it
could not be other than the domination of the strongest, and would
therefore set in motion right away the organisation and consolidation
of this domination, that is to the constitution of government."
[Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 148]). Beyond such general
considerations, however, the specifics of how to structure a non-hierarchical
society must remain open for discussion and experimentation:
"Anarchism, meaning Liberty, is compatible with the most diverse
economic [and social] conditions, on the premise that these cannot
imply, as under capitalist monopoly, the negation of liberty."
[D. A. de Santillan, After the Revolution, p. 95]
So, this section of the anarchist FAQ should not be regarded as
a detailed plan. Anarchists have always been reticent about spelling
out their vision of the future in too much detail for it would be
contrary to anarchist principles to be dogmatic about the precise
forms the new society must take. Free people will create their own
alternative institutions in response to conditions specific to their
area and it would be presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth universal
policies in advance. In Kropotkin's words:
"Once expropriation [of social wealth by the masses] has been
carried through . . . then, after a period of grouping, there
will necessarily arise a new system of organising production and
exchange . . . and that system will be a lot more attuned to
popular aspirations and the requirements of co-existence and
mutual relations than any theory, however splendid, devised
by the thinking and imagination of reformers. . ." [No Gods,
No Masters, vol. 1, p. 232]
This, however, did not stop him "predicting right now that [in
some areas influenced by anarchists]. . . the foundations of the new
organisation will be the free federation of producers' groups and
the free federation of Communes and groups in independent Communes."
[Ibid.] This is because what we think now will influence the
future just as real experience will influence and change how we think.
Moreover, given the ways in which our own unfree society has shaped
our ways of thinking, it is probably impossible for us to imagine
what new forms will arise once humanity's ingenuity and creativity
is unleashed by the removal of its present authoritarian fetters.
Thus any attempts to paint a detailed picture of the future will be
doomed to failure. Ultimately, anarchists think that "the new society
should be organised with the direct participation of all concerned,
from the periphery to the centre, freely and spontaneously, at the
prompting of the sentiment of solidarity and under pressure of the
natural needs of society." [E. Malatesta and A. Hamon, No Gods,
No Masters, vol. 2, p. 20]
Nevertheless, anarchists have been willing to specify some broad
principles indicating the general framework within which they expect
the institutions of the new society to grow. It is important to emphasise
that these principles are not the arbitrary creations of intellectuals
in ivory towers. Rather, they are based on the actual political, social
and economic structures that have arisen spontaneously whenever
working class people have attempted to throw off its chains during
eras of heightened revolutionary activity, such as the Paris Commune,
the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, and the Hungarian
uprising of 1956, to name just a few. Thus, for example, it is clear
that self-managed, democratic workers' councils are basic libertarian-socialist
forms, since they have appeared during all revolutionary periods --
a fact that is not surprising considering that they are rooted in
traditions of communal labour, shared resources, and participatory
decision making that stretch back tens of thousands of years, from
the clans and tribes of prehistoric times through the "barbarian"
agrarian village of the post-Roman world to the free medieval city,
as Kropotkin documents in his classic study Mutual Aid. Ultimately,
such organisations are the only alternatives to government. Unless
we make our own decisions ourselves, someone else will.
So, when reading these sections, please remember that this is just
an attempt to sketch the outline of a possible future. It is in no
way an attempt to determine exactly what a free society would
be like, for such a free society will be the result of the actions
of all of society, not just anarchists. As Malatesta argued:
"None can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who
is nearest to the truth, or which is the best way to achieve the
greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom, coupled by experience,
is the only way of discovering the truth and what is best; and there
is no freedom if there is a denial of the freedom to err."
[Life and Ideas, p. 49]
And, of course, real life has a habit of over-turning even the most
realistic sounding theories, ideas and ideologies. Marxism, Leninism,
Monetarism, laissez-faire capitalism (among others) have proven time
and time again that ideology applied to real life has effects not
predicted by the theory before hand (although in all four cases, their
negative effects where predicted by others; in the case of Marxism
and Leninism by anarchists). Anarchists are aware of this, which is
why we reject ideology in favour of theory and why we are hesitant
to create blue-prints for the future. After all, history has proven
Proudhon right when he stated that "every society declines the
moment it falls into the hands of the ideologists." [System
of Economical Contradictions, p. 115]
Only life, as Bakunin stressed, can create and so life must inform
theory -- and so if the theory is producing adverse results it is
better to revise the theory than deny reality or justify the evil
effects it creates on real people. Thus this section of the FAQ is
not a blue print, rather it is a series of suggestions (suggestions
drawn, we stress, from actual experiences of working class revolt
and organisation). These suggestions may be right or wrong and informed
by Malatesta's comments that:
"We do not boast that we possess absolute truth, on the
contrary, we believe that social truth is not a fixed
quantity, good for all times, universally applicable or
determinable in advance, but that instead, once freedom
has been secured, mankind will go forward discovering and
acting gradually with the least number of upheavals and
with a minimum of friction. Thus our solutions always leave
the door open to different and, one hopes, better solutions."
[Op. Cit., p.21]
It is for this reason that anarchists, to quote Bakunin, think that
the "revolution should not only be made for the people's sake;
it should also be made by the people." [No Gods, No Masters,
vol. 1, p. 141] Social problems will be solved in the interests of
the working class only if working class people solve them themselves.
This applies to a social revolution -- it will only liberate the working
class if working class people make it themselves, using their own
organisations and power. Indeed, it is the course of struggling for
social change, to correct social problems, by, say, strikes, occupations,
demonstrations and other forms of direct action, that people can transform
their assumptions about what is possible, necessary and desirable.
The necessity of organising their struggles and their actions ensures
the development of assemblies and other organs of popular power in
order to manage their activity. These create, potentially, an alternative
means by which society can be organised. As Kropotkin argued, "[a]ny
strike trains the participants for a common management of affairs."
[quoted by Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary
Anarchism, p. 233] The ability of people to manage their own lives,
and so society, becomes increasingly apparent and the existence of
hierarchical authority, the state, the boss or a ruling class, becomes
clearly undesirable and unnecessary. Thus the framework of the free
society will be created by the very process of class struggle, as
working class people create the organisations required to fight for
improvements and change within capitalism (for more discussion, see
section I.2.3).
Thus, the actual framework of an anarchist society and how
it develops and shapes itself is dependent on the needs and desires
of those who live in such a society or are trying to create one. This
is why anarchists stress the need for mass assemblies in both the
community and workplace and their federation from the bottom up to
manage common affairs. Anarchy can only be created by the active participation
of the mass of people. In the words of Malatesta, an anarchist society
would be based on "decisions taken at popular assemblies and carried
out by groups and individuals who have volunteered or are duly delegated."
The "success of the revolution" depends on "a large number
of individuals with initiative and the ability to tackle practical
tasks: by accustoming the masses not to leave the common cause in
the hands of a few, and to delegate, when delegation is necessary,
only for specific missions and for limited duration." [Life
and Ideas, p. 129] This self-management would be the basis on
which an anarchist society would change and develop, with the new
society created by those who live within it. Thus Bakunin:
"revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and
supreme control must always belong to 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. 172]
And, we must not forget that while we may be able to roughly guess
the way an anarchist society could start initially, we cannot pretend
to predict how it will develop in the long term. A social revolution
is just the beginning of a process that will soon lead to such a different
society that we cannot predict how it will look. Unfortunately, we
have to start where we are now, not where we hope to end up! Therefore
our discussion will, by necessity, reflect the current society as
this is the society we will be transforming. While, for some, this
outlook may not be of a sufficient qualitative break with the world
we now inhabit, it is essential. We need to offer and discuss suggestions
for action in the here and now, not for some future pie in
the sky world which can only possibly exist years, even decades, after
a successful revolution.
For example, the ultimate goal of anarchism, we stress, is not
the self-management of existing workplaces or industries. However,
a revolution will undoubtedly see the occupation and placing under
self-management much of existing industry and we start our discussion
assuming a similar set-up as exists today. This does not mean that
an anarchist society will continue to be like this, we simply present
the initial stages using examples we are all familiar with. It is
the simply the first stage of transforming industry into something
more ecologically safe, socially integrated and individually and collectively
empowering for people.
These words of the strikers just before the 1919 Seattle General
Strike expresses this perspective well:
"Labour will not only SHUT DOWN the industries, but Labour
will REOPEN, under the management of the appropriate trades,
such activities as are needed to preserve public health and
public peace. If the strike continues, Labour may feel led
to avoid public suffering by reopening more and more activities,
"UNDER ITS OWN MANAGEMENT.
"And that is why we say that we are starting on a road that leads
-- NO ONE KNOWS WHERE!" [quoted by Jeremy Brecher, Strike!,
p. 110]
Some people seriously seem to think that after a social revolution
working people will continue using the same technology, in the same
old workplaces, in the same old ways and not change a single thing
(except, perhaps, electing their managers). They simply transfer their
own lack of imagination onto the rest of humanity. We have little
doubt that working people will quickly transform their work, workplaces
and society into one suitable for human beings, rejecting the legacy
of capitalism and create a society we simply cannot predict. The occupying
of workplaces is, we stress, simply the first stage of the process
of transforming them and the rest of society.
People's lives in a post-revolutionary society will not centre around
fixed jobs and workplaces as they do now. Productive activity will
go on, but not in the alienated way it does today. Similarly, in their
communities people will apply their imaginations, skills and hopes
to transform them into better places to live (the beautification of
the commune, as the CNT put it). The first stage, of course, will
be to take over their existing communities and place them under community
control. Therefore, it is essential to remember that our discussion
can only provide an indication on how an anarchist society will operate
in the months and years after a successful revolution, an anarchist
society still marked by the legacy of capitalism. However, it would
be a great mistake to think that anarchists do not seek to transform
all aspects of society to eliminate that legacy and create a society
fit for unique individuals to live in. As an anarchist society develops
it will, we stress, transform society in ways we cannot guess at now,
based on the talents, hopes, dreams and imaginations of those living
in it.
Lastly, it could be argued that we spend too much time discussing
the "form" (i.e. the types of organisation and how they make
decisions) rather than the "content" of an anarchist society
(the nature of the decisions reached). Moreover, the implication of
this distinction also extends to the organisations created in the
class struggle that would, in all likelihood, become the framework
of a free society. However, form is as, perhaps more, important than
content. This is because "form" and "content" are inter-related
-- a libertarian, participatory "form" of organisation allows
the "content" of a decision, society or struggle to change.
Self-management has an educational effect on those involved, as they
are made aware of different ideas, think about them and decide between
them (and, of course, formula and present their own ones). Thus the
nature of these decisions can and will evolve. Thus form has a decisive
impact on "content" and so we make no apologies for discussing
the form of a free society. As Murray Bookchin argues:
"To assume that the forms of freedom can be treated merely as forms
would be as absurd as to assume that legal concepts can be treated
merely as questions of jurisprudence. The form and content of
freedom, like law and society, are mutually determined. By the
same token, there are forms of organisation that promote and
forms that vitiate the goal of freedom . . . To one degree or
another, these forms either alter the individual who uses them
or inhibit his [or her] further development." [Post-Scarcity
Anarchism, p. 147]
And the content of decisions are determined by the individuals
involved. Thus participatory, decentralised, self-managed organisations
are essential for the development of the content of decisions because
they develop the individuals who make them.
Partly, in order to indicate why people should become anarchists. Most people
do not like making jumps in the dark, so an indication of what anarchists
think a desirable society would look like may help those people who
are attracted intellectually by anarchism, inspiring them to become
committed to its practical realisation. Partly, it's a case of learning
from past mistakes. There have been numerous anarchistic social experiments
on varying scales, and its useful to understand what happened, what
worked and what did not. In that way, hopefully, we will not make
the same mistakes twice.
However, the most important reason for discussing what an anarchist
society would look like is to ensure that the creation of such a society
is the action of as many people as possible. As Errico Malatesta indicated
in the middle of the Italian revolutionary "Two Red Years"
(see section A.5.5), "either we
all apply our minds to thinking about social reorganisation, and right
away, at the very same moment that the old structures are being swept
away, and we shall have a more humane and more just society, open
to future advances, or we shall leave such matters to the 'leaders'
and we shall have a new government." [The Anarchist Revolution,
p. 69]
Hence the importance of discussing what the future will be like
in the here and now. The more people who have a fairly clear idea
of what a free society would look like the easier it will be to create
that society and ensure that no important matters are left to the
"leaders" to decide for us. The example of the Spanish Revolution
comes to mind. For many years before 1936, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. put
out publications discussing what an anarchist society would look like
(for example, After the Revolution by Diego Abel de Santillan
and Libertarian Communism by Isaac Puente). In fact, anarchists
had been organising and educating in Spain for almost seventy years
before the revolution. When it finally occurred, the millions of people
who participated already shared a similar vision and started to build
a society based on it, thus learning firsthand where their books were
wrong and which areas of life they did not adequately cover.
So, this discussion of what an anarchist society might look like
is not a drawing up of blueprints, nor is it an attempt to force the
future into the shapes created in past revolts. It is purely and simply
an attempt to start people discussing what a free society would be
like and to learn from previous experiments. However, as anarchists
recognise the importance of building the new world in the shell of
the old, our ideas of what a free society would be like can feed into
how we organise and struggle today. And vice versa; for how we organise
and struggle today will have an impact on the future.
As Malatesta pointed out, such discussions are necessary and essential,
for "[i]t is absurd to believe that, once government has been destroyed
and the capitalists expropriated, 'things will look after themselves'
without the intervention of those who already have an idea on what
has to be done and who immediately set about doing it. . . . [for]
social life, as the life of individuals, does not permit of interruption."
He stresses that "[t]o neglect all the problems of reconstruction
or to pre-arrange complete and uniform plans are both errors, excesses
which, by different routes, would led to our defeat as anarchists
and to the victory of new or old authoritarian regime. The truth lies
in the middle." [Op. Cit., p. 121]
Moreover, the importance of discussing the future can help indicate
whether our activities are actually creating a better world. After
all, if Karl Marx had been more willing to discuss his vision of a
socialist society then the Stalinists would have found it much harder
to claim that their hellish system was, in fact, socialism. Unfortunately
he failed to understand this. Given that anarchists like Proudhon
and Bakunin gave a board outline of their vision of a free society
it would have been impossible for anarchism to be twisted as Marxism
was.
We hope that this Section of the FAQ, in its own small way, will
encourage as many people as possible to discuss what a libertarian
society would be like and use that discussion to bring it closer.
Possibly, it depends what is meant by an anarchist society.
If it is meant a fully classless society (what some people, inaccurately,
would call a "utopia") then the answer is a clear "no, that
would be impossible." Anarchists are well aware that "class
difference do not vanish at the stroke of a pen whether that pen belongs
to the theoreticians or to the pen-pushers who set out laws or decrees.
Only action, that is to say direct action (not through government)
expropriation by the proletarians, directed against the privileged
class, can wipe out class difference." [Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy
and 'Scientific' Communism", in The Poverty of Statism,
pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 30]
For anarchists, a social revolution is a process and not
an event (although, of course, a process marked by such events as
general strikes, uprisings, insurrections and so on). As Kropotkin
argued:
"It is a whole insurrectionary period of three, four, perhaps
five years that we must traverse to accomplish our revolution
in the property system and in social organisation."
[Words of a Rebel, p. 72]
His famous work The Conquest of Bread aimed, to use his words,
at "prov[ing] that communism -- at least partial -- has more chance
of being established than collectivism, especially in communes taking
the lead . . . [and] tried . . . to indicate how, during a revolutionary
period, a large city -- if its inhabitants have accepted the idea
-- could organise itself on the lines of free communism." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 298] Indeed, he stresses in The
Conquest of Bread 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." [The Conquest of Bread,
p. 81] Indeed, he stressed that "[n]o fallacy more harmful has
ever been spread than the fallacy of a 'One-day Revolution.'"
[Op. Cit., p. 81f] The revolution, in other words, would progress
towards communism after the initial revolt:
"we know that an uprising can overthrow and change a government
in one day, while a revolution needs three or four years of
revolutionary convulsion to arrive at tangible results . . . if
we should expect the revolution, from its earliest insurrections,
to have a communist character, we would have to relinquish the
possibility of a revolution, since in that case there would be
need of a strong majority to agree on carrying through a change
in the direction of communism." [Kropotkin, quoted by Max Nettlau,
A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 282-3]
In addition, different areas will develop in different speeds and
in different ways, depending on the influences dominant in the area.
"Side by side with the revolutionised communes," argued Kropotkin,
"[other] places would remain in an expectant attitude, and would
go on living on the Individualist system . . . revolution would break
out everywhere, but revolution under different aspects; in one country
State Socialism, in another Federation; everywhere more or less Socialism,
not conforming to any particular rule." Thus "the Revolution
will take a different character in each of the different European
nations; the point attained in the socialisation of wealth will not
be everywhere the same." [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 81-2
and p. 81] In this, as we shall see, he followed Bakunin.
Kropotkin was also aware that a revolution would face many problems,
including the disruption of economic activity, civil war and isolation.
He argued that it was "certain that the coming Revolution . . .
will burst upon us in the middle of a great industrial crisis . .
. There are millions of unemployed workers in Europe at this moment.
It will be worse when Revolution has burst upon us . . . The number
of the out-of-works will be doubled as soon as barricades are erected
in Europe and the United States . . . we know that in time of Revolution
exchange and industry suffer most from the general upheaval . . .
A Revolution in Europe means, then, the unavoidable stoppage of at
least half the factories and workshops." He stressed that there
would be "the complete disorganisation" of the capitalist economy
and that during a revolution "[i]nternational commerce will come
to a standstill" and "the circulation of commodities and of
provisions will be paralysed." This would, of course, have an
impact on the development of a revolution and so the "circumstances
will dictate the measures." [Op. Cit., pp. 69-70, p. 191
and p. 79]
Thus we have anarcho-communism being introduced "during a revolutionary
period" rather than instantly and the possibility that it will
be "partial" in many, if not all areas, depending on the "circumstances"
encountered. Therefore the (Marxist inspired) claim that anarchists
think a fully communist society is possible overnight is simply false
-- we recognise that a social revolution takes time to develop after
it starts. As Malatesta put it, "after the revolution, that is
after the defeat of the existing powers and the overwhelming victory
of the forces of insurrection, . . . then . . . gradualism really
comes into operation. We shall have to study all the practical problems
of life: production, exchange, the means of communication, relations
between anarchist groupings and those living under some kind of authority,
between communist collectives and those living in an individualistic
way; relations between town and country . . . -- and so on." [Life
and Ideas, p. 173]
However, if by "anarchist society" it is meant a society
that has abolished the state and started the process of transforming
society from below then anarchists argue that such a society is not
only possible after a successful revolution, it is essential. Thus
the anarchist social revolution would be political (abolition of the
state), economic (abolition of capitalism) and social (abolition of
hierarchical social relationships). Or, more positively, the introduction
of self-management into every aspect of life. In other words, "political
transformation . . . [and] economic transformation . . . must be accomplished
together and simultaneously." [Bakunin, The Basic Bakunin,
p. 106] This transformation would be based upon the organisations
created by working class people in their struggle against capitalism
and the state (see next section).
Thus the framework of a free society would be created by the struggle
for freedom itself, by the class struggle within but against
hierarchical society. This revolution would come "from below"
and would expropriate capital as well as smash the state:
"the revolution must set out from the first to radically
and totally destroy the State . . . The natural and necessary
consequence of this destruction will be . . . [among others,
the] dissolution of army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police
and priesthood. . . confiscation of all productive capital
and means of production on behalf of workers' associations,
who are to put them to use . . . the federative Alliance
of all working men's associations . . . will constitute
the Commune." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 170]
As can be seen, anarchists have long argued that a social revolution
must be directed against both capitalism and the state. Moreover,
we have always stressed the key role that workers' councils (or "soviets")
would play in a socialist revolution as both a means of struggle and
the basis of a free society.
Such a society, as Bakunin argued, will not be "perfect"
by any means:
"I do not say that the peasants [and workers], freely organised
from the bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation,
confirming in all respects to our dreams. But I am convinced
that what they construct will be living and vibrant, a thousands
times better and more just than any existing organisation.
Moreover, this . . . organisation, being on the one hand open
to revolutionary propaganda . . . , and on the other, not
petrified by the intervention of the State . . . will develop
and perfect itself through free experimentation as fully as
one can reasonably expect in our times.
"With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation of popular
life . . . will revert to the communes. The development of each
commune will take its point of departure the actual condition of
its civilisation . . ." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 207]
The degree which a society which has abolished the state can progress
towards free communism depends on objective conditions. Bakunin and
other collectivists doubted the possibility of introducing a communistic
system instantly after a revolution. For Kropotkin and many other
anarcho-communists, communistic anarchy can, and must, be introduced
as far as possible and as soon as possible in order to ensure a successful
revolution. We should mention here that some anarchists, like the
individualists, do not support the idea of revolution and instead
see anarchist alternatives growing within capitalism and slowly replacing
it.
So, clearly, the idea of "one-day revolution" is one rejected
as a harmful fallacy by anarchists. We are aware that revolutions
are a process and not an event (or series of events). However,
one thing that anarchists do agree on is that it's essential for both
the state and capitalism to be undermined as quickly as possible.
It is true that, in the course of social revolution, we anarchists
may not be able to stop a new state being created or the old one from
surviving. It all depends on the balance of support for anarchist
ideas in the population and how willing people are to introduce them.
There is no doubt, though, that for a social revolt to be fully anarchist,
the state and capitalism must be destroyed and new forms of oppression
and exploitation not put in their place. How quickly after such a
destruction we move to a fully communist-anarchist society is a moot
point, dependent on the conditions the revolution is facing and the
ideas and wants of the people making it.
In other words anarchists agree that an anarchist society cannot
be created overnight, for to assume so would be to imagine that anarchists
could enforce their ideas on a pliable population. Libertarian socialism
can only be created from below, by people who want it and understand
it, organising and liberating themselves. "Communist organisations,"
argued Kropotkin, "must be the work of all, a natural growth, a
product of the constructive genius of the great mass. Communism cannot
be imposed from above; it could not live even for a few months if
the constant and daily co-operation of all did not uphold it. It must
be free." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 140]
The results of the Russian Revolution should have cleared away long
ago any contrary illusions about how to create "socialist" societies.
The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes made by people
in liberating themselves and transforming society are always minor
compared to the results of creating authorities, who eliminate such
"ideological errors" by destroying the freedom to make mistakes (and
so freedom as such). Freedom is the only real basis on which socialism
can be built ("Experience through freedom is the only means to
arrive at the truth and the best solutions; and there is no freedom
if there is not the freedom to be wrong." [Malatesta, Life
and Ideas, p. 72]).
Therefore, most anarchists would support Malatesta's claim that
"[t]o organise a [libertarian] communist society on a large scale
it would be necessary to transform all economic life radically, such
as methods of production, of exchange and consumption; and all this
could not be achieved other than gradually, as the objective circumstances
permitted and to the extent that the masses understood what advantages
could be gained and were able to act for themselves." [Malatesta:
Life and Ideas, p. 36]
This means that while the conditions necessary of a free society
would be created in a broad way by a social revolution, it would be
utopian to imagine everything will be perfect immediately. Few anarchists
have argued that such a jump would be possible -- rather they have
argued that revolutions create the conditions for the evolution towards
an anarchist society by abolishing state and capitalism. "Besides,"
argued Alexander Berkman, "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 to anarchy, to establish conditions
which will make a life of liberty possible." However, "to achieve
its purpose the revolution must be imbued with and directed by the
anarchist spirit and ideas. The end shapes the means. . . the social
revolution must be anarchist in method as in aim." [The ABC
of Anarchism, p. 81]
This means that while acknowledging the possibility of a transitional
society, anarchists reject the notion of a transitional state
as confused in the extreme (and, as can be seen from the experience
of Marxism, dangerous as well). An anarchist society can only be achieved
by anarchist means. Hence French Syndicalist Fernand Pelloutier's
comments:
"Nobody believes or expects that the coming revolution . . . will
realise unadulterated anarchist-communism. . . it will erupt, no
doubt, before the work of anarchist education has been completed . . .
[and as] a result . . . , while we do preach perfect communism,
it is not in the certainty or expectation of [libertarian] communism's
being the social form of the future: it is in order to further men's
[and women's] education . . . so that, by the time of the day of
conflagration comes, they will have attained maximum emancipation.
But must the transitional state to be endured necessarily or
inevitability be the collectivist [i.e. state socialist/capitalist]
jail? Might it not consist of libertarian organisation confined
to the needs of production and consumption alone, with all political
institutions having been done away with?" [No Gods, No Masters,
vol. 2, p. 55]
One thing is certain: an anarchist social revolution or mass
movement will need to defend itself against attempts by statists and
capitalists to defeat it. Every popular movement, revolt, or revolution
has had to face a backlash from the supporters of the status quo.
An anarchist revolution or mass movement will face (and indeed has
faced) such counter-revolutionary movements. However, this does not
mean that the destruction of the state and capitalism need be put
off until after the forces of reaction are defeated (as Marxists usually
claim). For anarchists, a social revolution and free society can only
be defended by anti-statist means, for example, by "arming everyone
. . . and of interesting the mass of the population in the victory
of the revolution." This would involve the "creation of a 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
by countries as yet not in a state of revolution." [Malatesta,
Life and Ideas, p. 173 and p. 166] For more discussion of this
important subject see sections I.5.14
and J.7.6.
So, given an anarchist revolution which destroys the state, the
type and nature of the economic system created by it will depend on
local circumstances and the level of awareness in society. The individualists
are correct in the sense that what we do now will determine how the
future develops. Obviously, any "transition period" starts
in the here and now, as this helps determine the future. Thus,
while social anarchists usually reject the idea that capitalism can
be reformed away, we agree with the individualists that it is essential
for anarchists to be active today in constructing the ideas, ideals
and new liberatory institutions of the future society within the current
one. The notion of waiting for the "glorious day" of total
revolution is not one held by anarchists.
Thus, all the positions outlined at the start of this section have
a grain of truth in them. This is because, as Malatesta put it, "[w]e
are, in any case, only one of the forces acting in society, and history
will advance, as always, in the direction of the resultant of all
the [social] forces." [Malatesta: Life and Ideas, p. 109]
This means that different areas will experiment in different ways,
depending on the level of awareness which exists there -- as would
be expected in a free society which is created by the mass of the
people.
Ultimately, the most we can say about the timing and necessary conditions
of revolution is that an anarchist society can only come about once
people liberate themselves (and this implies an ethical and psychological
transformation), but that this does not mean that people need to be
"perfect" nor that an anarchist society will come about "overnight,"
without a period of self-activity by which individuals reshape and
change themselves as they are reshaping and changing the world about
them.
Anarchists do not abstractly compare a free society with the current one.
Rather, we see an organic connection between what is and what
could be. In other words, anarchists see the initial framework of
an anarchist society as being created under statism and capitalism
when working class people organise themselves to resist hierarchy.
As Kropotkin argued:
"To make a revolution it is not . . . enough that there should
be . . . [popular] risings . . . It is necessary that after the
risings there should be something new in the institutions [that
make up society], which would permit new forms of life to be
elaborated and established." [The Great French Revolution,
vol. 1, p. 200]
Anarchists have seen these new institutions as being linked with
the need of working class people to resist the evils of capitalism
and statism. In other words, as being the product of the class struggle
and attempts by working class people to resist state and capitalist
authority. Thus the struggle of working class people to protect and
enhance their liberty under hierarchical society will be the basis
for a society without hierarchy. This basic insight allowed
anarchists like Bakunin and Proudhon to predict future developments
in the class struggle such as workers' councils (such as those which
developed during the 1905 and 1917 Russian Revolutions). As Oskar
Anweiler notes in his definitive work on the Russian Soviets (Workers'
Councils):
"Proudhon's views are often directly associated with the
Russian councils . . . Bakunin . . ., much more than
Proudhon, linked anarchist principles directly to
revolutionary action, thus arriving at remarkable
insights into the revolutionary process that contribute
to an understanding of later events in Russia . . .
"In 1863 Proudhon declared . . . 'All my economic ideas as developed over
twenty-five years can be summed up in the words: agricultural-industrial
federation. All my political ideas boil down to a similar formula:
political federation or decentralisation.' . . . Proudhon's conception
of a self-governing state [sic!] founded on producers' corporations
[i.e. federations of co-operatives], is certainly related to the
idea of 'a democracy of producers' which emerged in the factory
soviets. To this extent Proudhon can be regarded as an ideological
precursor of the councils . . .
"Bakunin . . . suggested the formation of revolutionary committees
with representatives from the barricades, the streets, and the city
districts, who would be given binding mandates, held accountable
to the masses, and subject to recall. These revolutionary deputies
were to form the 'federation of the barricades,' organising a revolutionary
commune to immediately unite with other centres of rebellion . .
.
"Bakunin proposed the formation of revolutionary committees to
elect communal councils, and a pyramidal organisation of society
'through free federation from the bottom upward, the association
of workers in industry and agriculture -- first in the communities,
then through federation of communities into districts, districts
into nations, and nations into international brotherhood.' These
proposals are indeed strikingly similar to the structure of the
subsequent Russian system of councils . . .
"Bakunin's ideas about spontaneous development of the revolution
and the masses' capacity for elementary organisation undoubtedly
were echoed in part by the subsequent soviet movement. . . Because
Bakunin . . . was always very close to the reality of social struggle,
he was able to foresee concrete aspects of the revolution. The council
movement during the Russian Revolution, though not a result of Bakunin's
theories, often corresponded in form and progress to his revolutionary
concepts and predictions." [The Soviets, pp. 8-11]
Paul Avrich also notes this:
"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]
In this sense, anarchy is not some distant goal but rather an aspect
of the current struggles against domination, oppression and exploitation
(i.e. the class struggle, to use an all-embracing term, although we
must stress that anarchists use this term to cover all struggles against
domination). "Anarchism," argued Kropotkin, "is not a mere
insight into a remote future. Already now, whatever the sphere of
action of the individual, he [or she] can act, either in accordance
with anarchist principles or on an opposite line." It was "born
among the people -- in the struggles of real life" and "owes
its origin to the constructive, creative activity of the people."
[Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 75, p. 150 and p.
149]
Thus, "Anarchism is not . . . a theory of the future to be realised
by divine inspiration. It is a living force in the affairs of our
life, constantly creating new conditions." It "stands for the
spirit of revolt" and so "[d]irect action against the authority
in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, of direct
action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code,
is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism." [Emma Goldman,
Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 63 and p. 66]
Anarchism draws upon the autonomous self-activity and spontaneity
of working class people in struggle to inform both its political theory
and its vision of a free society. The struggle against hierarchy,
in other words, teaches us not only how to be anarchists but also
gives us a glimpse of what an anarchist society would be like, what
its initial framework could be and the experience of managing our
own activities which is required for such a society to function successfully.
Therefore, as is clear, anarchists have long had a clear vision
of what an anarchist society would look like and, equally as important,
where such a society would spring from. Which means, of course, that
Lenin's assertion in The State and Revolution that anarchists
"have absolutely no clear idea of what the proletariat will
put in its [the states] place" is simply false. [Essential
Works of Lenin, p. 358] Anarchists supported the idea of a federation
of workers' councils as the means to destroy the state over 50 years
before Lenin argued that the soviets would be the basis of his "workers"
state.
It would, therefore, be useful to give a quick summary of anarchist
views on this subject.
Proudhon, for example, looked to the self-activity of French workers,
artisans and peasants and used that as the basis of his ideas on anarchism.
While seeing such activity as essentially reformist in nature, he
saw the germs of anarchy as being the result of "generating from
the bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a greater authority,
a more potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the State and
subjugate them" as "it is of no use to change the holders of
power or introduce some variation into its workings: an agricultural
and industrial combination must be found by means of which power,
today the ruler of society, shall become its slave." [System
of Economical Contradictions, p. 399 and p. 398] What, decades
later, Proudhon called an "agro-industrial federation" in his
Principal of Federation.
He argued that workers should follow the example of those already
creating Mutual Banks and co-operatives. He stressed the importance
of co-operatives:
"Do not the workmen's unions at this moment serve as the
cradle for the social revolution, as the early Christian
communities served as the cradle of Catholicity? Are they
not always the open school, both theoretical and practical,
where the workman learns the science of the production and
distribution of wealth, where he studies, without masters
and without books, by his own experience solely, the laws
of that industrial organisation, which was the ultimate
aim of the Revolution of '89 . . . ?" [The General Idea
of the Revolution, p. 78]
Proudhon linked his ideas to what working people were already doing:
"labour associations . . . hav[e] grasped spontaneously . .
. [that] merely by liasing with one another and making loans to
one another, [they] have organised labour . . . So that, organisation
of credit and organisation of labour amount to one and the same.
It is no school and no theoretician that is saying this: the proof
of it, rather, lies in current practice, revolutionary practice
. . . If it were to come about that the workers were to come to
some arrangement throughout the Republic and organise themselves
along similar lines, it is obvious that, as masters of labour, constantly
generating fresh capital through work, they would soon have wrested
alienated capital back again, through their organisation and competition
. . . We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically
organised workers' associations . . . We want these associations
to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering
core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into
the common cloth of the democratic social Republic." [No
Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 59-61]
This linking of the present and the future through the self-activity
and self-organisation of working class people is also found in Bakunin.
Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin stressed revolutionary activity and
so he saw the militant labour movement, and the revolution itself,
as providing the basic structure of a free society. As he put it,
"the organisation of the trade sections and their representation
in the Chambers of Labour . . . bear in themselves the living seeds
of the new society which is to replace the old one. They are creating
not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself."
[Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 255]
The needs of the class struggle would create the framework of a
new society, a federation of workers councils, as "strikes indicate
a certain collective strength already, a certain understanding among
the workers . . . each strike becomes the point of departure for the
formation of new groups." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 149-50]
This pre-revolutionary development would be accelerated by the revolution
itself:
"the federative alliance of all working men's associations . . .
[will] constitute the Commune . . . [the] Communal Council [will
be] composed of . . . delegates . . . vested with plenary but
accountable and removable mandates. . . all provinces, communes
and associations . . . by first reorganising on revolutionary lines
. . . [will] constitute the federation of insurgent associations,
communes and provinces . . . [and] organise a revolutionary force
capable defeating reaction . . . [and for] self-defence . . .
[The] 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,
pp. 170-2]
Like Bakunin, Kropotkin stressed that revolution transformed those
taking part in it. As he noted in his classic account of the French
Revolution, "by degrees, the revolutionary education of the people
was being accomplished by the revolution itself." [Op. Cit.,
vol. 1, p. 261] Part of this process involved creating new organisations
which allowed the mass of people to take part in the decision making
of the revolution. He pointed to "the popular Commune," arguing
that "the Revolution began by creating the Commune . . . and through
this institution it gained . . . immense power." He stressed that
it was "by means of the 'districts' [of the Communes] that . .
. the masses, accustoming themselves to act without receiving orders
from the national representatives, were practising what was to be
described later as Direct Self-Government." Such a system did
not imply isolation, for while "the districts strove to maintain
their own independence" they also "sought for unity of action,
not in subjection to a Central Committee, but in a federative union."
The Commune "was thus made from below upward, by the federation
of the district organisations; it spring up in a revolutionary way,
from popular initiative." [Op. Cit., p. 200 and p. 203]
Thus the process of class struggle, of the needs of the fighting
against the existing system, generated the framework of an anarchist
society -- "the districts of Paris laid the foundations of a new,
free, social organisation." Little wonder he argued that "the
principles of anarchism . . . already dated from 1789, and that they
had their origin, not in theoretical speculations, but in the deeds
of the Great French Revolution" and that "the libertarians
would no doubt do the same to-day." [Op. Cit., p. 206,
p. 204 and p. 206]
Similarly, we discover him arguing in Mutual Aid that strikes
and labour unions were an expression of mutual aid in capitalist society
and of "the worker's need of mutual support." [Mutual Aid,
p. 213] Elsewhere Kropotkin argued that "labour combinations"
like the "Sections" of French revolution were one of the "main
popular anarchist currents" in history, expressing the "same
popular resistance to the growing power of the few." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 159] For Kropotkin, like Bakunin,
libertarian labour unions were "natural organs for the direct struggle
with capitalism and for the composition of the future social order."
[quoted by Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p. 81]
As can be seen, the major anarchist thinkers pointed to forms of
organisation autonomously created and managed by the working class
as the framework of an anarchist society. Both Bakunin and Kropotkin
pointed to militant, direct action based labour unions while Proudhon
pointed towards workers' experiments in co-operative production and
mutual credit.
Later anarchists followed them. The anarcho-syndicalists, like Bakunin
and Kropotkin, pointed to the developing labour movement as the framework
of an anarchist society, as providing the basis for the free federation
of workers' associations which would constitute the commune. Others,
such as the Russians Maximov, Arshinov, Voline and Makhno, saw the
spontaneously created workers' councils (soviets) of 1905 and 1917
as the basis of a free society, as another example of Bakunin's federation
of workers' associations.
Thus, for all anarchists, the structural framework of an anarchist
society was created by the class struggle, by the needs of working
class people to resist oppression, exploitation and hierarchy. As
Kropotkin stressed, "[d]uring a revolution new forms of life will
always germinate on the ruins of the old forms . . . It is impossible
to legislate for the future. All we can do is vaguely guess its essential
tendencies and clear the road for it." [Evolution and Environment,
pp. 101-2]
These essential tendencies were discovered, in practice, by the
needs of the class struggle. The necessity of practising mutual aid
and solidarity to survive under capitalism (as in any other hostile
environment) makes working people and other oppressed groups organise
together to fight their oppressors and exploiters. Thus the co-operation
necessary for a libertarian socialist society, like its organisational
framework, would be generated by the need to resist oppression and
exploitation under capitalism. The process of resistance produces
organisation on a wider and wider scale which, in turn, can become
the framework of a free society as the needs of the struggle promote
libertarian forms of organisation such as decision making from the
bottom up, autonomy, federalism, delegates subject to instant recall
and so on.
For example, a strikers' assembly would be the basic decision-making
forum in a struggle for improved wages and working conditions. It
would create a strike committee to implement its decisions and send
delegates to spread the strike. These delegates inspire other strikes,
requiring a new organisation to co-ordinate the struggle. This results
in delegates from all the strikes meeting and forming a federation
(i.e. a workers' council). The strikers decide to occupy the workplace
and the strike assemblies take over the means of production. The strike
committees becomes the basis for factory committees which could administer
the workplaces, based on workers' self-management via workplace assemblies
(the former strikers' assemblies). The federation of strikers' delegates
becomes the local communal council, replacing the existing state with
a self-managed federation of workers' associations. In this way, the
class struggle creates the framework of a free society.
This, obviously, means that any suggestions of how an anarchist
society would look like are based on the fact that the actual
framework of a free society will be the product of actual
struggles. This means that the form of the free society will be shaped
by the process of social change and the organs it creates. This is
an important point and worth repeating.
So, as well as changing themselves while they change the world,
a people in struggle also create the means by which they can manage
society. By having to organise and manage their struggles, they become
accustomed to self-management and self-activity and create the possibility
of a free society and the organisations which will exist within it.
Thus the framework of an anarchist society comes from the class struggle
and the process of revolution itself. Anarchy is not a jump into the
dark but rather a natural progression of the struggle for freedom
in an unfree society. The contours of a free society will be shaped
by the process of creating it and, therefore, will not be an artificial
construction imposed on society. Rather, it will be created from below
up by society itself as working class people start to break free of
hierarchy. The class struggle thus transforms those involved as well
as society and creates the organisational structure and people
required for a libertarian society.
This clearly suggests that the means anarchists support are
important as they are have a direct impact on the ends they create.
In other words, means influence ends and so our means must reflect
the ends we seek and empower those who use them. In the words of Malatesta:
"In our opinion all action which is directed toward the
destruction of economic and political oppression, which
serves to raise the moral and intellectual level of the
people; which gives them an awareness of their individual
rights and their power, and persuades them themselves to
act on their own behalf . . . brings us closer to our
ends and is therefore a good thing. On the other hand
all activity which tends to preserve the present state
of affairs, that tends to sacrifice man against his will
for the triumph of a principle, is bad because it is a
denial of our ends." [Life and Ideas, p. 69]
The present state of affairs is based on the oppression, exploitation
and alienation of the working class. This means that any tactics used
in the pursuit of a free society must be based on resisting and destroying
those evils. This is why anarchists stress tactics and organisations
which increase the power, confidence, autonomy, initiative, participation
and self-activity of oppressed people. As we indicate in section J
("What Do Anarchists Do?") this
means supporting direct action, solidarity and self-managed organisations
built and run from the bottom-up. Only by fighting our own battles,
relying on ourselves and our own abilities and power, in organisations
we create and run ourselves, can we gain the power and confidence
and experience needed to change society for the better and, hopefully,
create a new society in place of the current one.
Needless to say, a revolutionary movement will never, at its start,
be purely anarchist:
"All of the workers' and peasants' movements which have
taken place . . . have been movements within the limits
of the capitalist regime, and have been more of less
tinged with anarchism. This is perfectly natural and
understandable. The working class do not act within a
world of wishes, but in the real world where they are
daily subjected to the physical and psychological blows
of hostile forces . . . the workers continually feel
the influence of all the real conditions of the
capitalist regime and of intermediate groups . . .
Consequently it is natural that the struggle which
they undertake inevitably carries the stamp of various
conditions and characteristics of contemporary society.
The struggle can never be born in the finished and
perfected anarchist form which would correspond to
all the requirements of the ideas . . . When the
popular masses engage in a struggle of large dimensions,
they inevitably start by committing errors, they
allow contradictions and deviations, and only through
the process of this struggle do they direct their
efforts in the direction of the ideal for which they
are struggling." [Peter Arshinov, The History of
the Makhnovist Movement, pp. 239-40]
The role of anarchists is "to help the masses to take the right
road in the struggle and in the construction of the new society"
and "support their first constructive efforts, assist them intellectually."
However, the working class "once it has mastered the struggle and
begins its social construction, will no longer surrender to anyone
the initiative in creative work. The working class will then direct
itself by its own thought; it will create its society according to
its own plans." [Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 240-1] All anarchists
can do is help this process by being part of it, arguing our case
and winning people over to anarchist ideas (see section
J.3 for more details). Thus the process of struggle and debate
will, hopefully, turn a struggle against capitalism and statism
into one for anarchism. In other words, anarchists seek to
preserve and extend the anarchistic elements that exist in every struggle
and to help them become consciously libertarian by discussion and
debate as members of those struggles.
Lastly, we must stress that it is only the initial framework
of a free society which is created in the class struggle. As an anarchist
society develops, it will start to change and develop in ways we cannot
predict. The forms in which people express their freedom and their
control over their own lives will, by necessity, change as these requirements
and needs change. As Bakunin argued:
"Even the most rational and profound science cannot divine
the form social life will take in the future. It can only
determine the negative conditions, which follow logically
from a rigorous critique of existing society. Thus, by means
of such a critique, social and economic science rejected
hereditary individual property and, consequently, took the
abstract and, so to speak, negative position of collective
property as a necessary condition of the future social
order. In the same way, it rejected the very idea of the
state or statism, meaning government of society from above
downward . . . Therefore, it took the opposite, or
negative, position: anarchy, meaning the free and
independent organisation of all the units and parts of
the community and their voluntary federation from below
upward, not by the orders of any authority, even an
elected one, and not by the dictates of any scientific
theory, but as the natural development of all the
varied demands put forth by life itself.
"Therefore no scholar can teach the people or even define for himself how
they will and must life on the morrow of the social revolution.
That will be determined first by the situation of each people, and
secondly by the desires that manifest themselves and operate most
strongly within them." [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 198-9]
Therefore, while it will be reasonable to conclude that, for example,
the federation of strike/factory assemblies and their councils/committees
will be the framework by which production will initially be organised,
this framework will mutate to take into account changing production
and social needs. The actual structures created will, by necessity,
will be transformed as industry is transformed from below upwards
to meet the real needs of society and producers. As Kropotkin argued,
"the 'concentration' [of capital into bigger and bigger units]
so much spoken of is 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] This means that the first task of any libertarian society
will be to transform both the structure and nature of work and industry
developed under capitalism.
Anarchists have long argued that that capitalist methods cannot
be used for socialist ends. In our battle to democratise the workplace,
in our awareness of the importance of collective initiatives by the
direct producers in transforming the work situation and the economic
infrastructure, 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.
Therefore, under workers' self-management industry, work and the whole
structure and organisation of production will be transformed in ways
we can only guess at today. We can point the general direction (i.e.
self-managed, ecologically balanced, decentralised, federal, empowering,
creative and so on) but that is all.
Similarly, as cities and towns are transformed into ecologically
integrated communes, the initial community assemblies and their federations
will transform along with the transformation of our surroundings.
What they will evolve into we cannot predict, but their fundamentals
of instant recall, delegation over representation, decision making
from the bottom up, and so on will remain.
So, while anarchists see "the future in the present" as the
initial framework of a free society, we recognise that such a society
will evolve and change. However, the fundamental principles of a free
society will not change and so it is useful to present a summary of
how such a society could work, based on these principles.
|
