« back to all changes in this revision
Viewing changes to Append33.txt
- browse files at revision 5
- compare with another revision
- download diff
- download tarball
- view history from revision 5
- Committer: Bazaar Package Importer
- Author(s): Mauro Lizaur
- Date: 2010-08-15 20:50:06 UTC
- mfrom: (1.2.3 upstream)
- Revision ID: james.westby@ubuntu.com-20100815205006-g6n34el0anfxdjcv
Tags: 13.4-1
* New upstream release. (Closes: #441622)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
- files added:
- .pc
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches/html
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches/txt
- debian/patches
- debian/source
- html
- txt
- files removed:
- 10years.html
- files modified:
- debian/README.Debian
added
removed
Append33.txt
1
Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's
2
_Marxism and direct action_
3
4
1. How does Mitchinson impoverish the politics of the direct action
5
groups?
6
2. Does anarchism "juxtapose" theory and action?
7
3. How does Mitchinson distort the London May Day demo?
8
4. Do anarchists really think "the bosses will do nothing to defend
9
their system"?
10
5. How does Mitchinson misrepresent anarchist organisation?
11
6. How does Mitchinson define anarchism wrongly?
12
7. Does anarchism reject fighting for reforms?
13
8. Does anarchism see the state as the root of all problems?
14
9. Why is Mitchinson wrong about the "Abolishion [i.e. Abolition] of
15
the state"?
16
10. Why is Mitchinson's comment that we face either "socialism or
17
barbarism" actually undermine his case?
18
11. Why is Mitchinson wrong to assert anarchists do not believe
19
in defending a revolution?
20
12. Would the "workers' state" really be different, as Mitchinson claims?
21
13. Is the Marxist "worker's state" really the rule of one class
22
over another?
23
14. Why do anarchists reject the Marxist notion of "conquest of power"?
24
15. What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?
25
16. Did anarchists reject "the need for organisation in the shape of
26
trade unions"?
27
17. Why do anarchists reject political activity?
28
18. How do anarchists struggle for reforms under capitalism?
29
19. How does Mitchinson distorts the use of the term "Self-reliance"?
30
20. Is anarchism an example of "Philosophical idealism"?
31
21. How is Mitchinson's critique self-contradictory?
32
22. How did Trotsky make the trains run on time?
33
23. Can centralised planning meet the needs of the whole of society?
34
24. Is technology neutral?
35
25. Do anarchists ignore the "strength of the working class"?
36
26. What does Mitchinson's article tell about the nature of Trotskyism?
37
38
Phil Mitchinson essay _Marxism and direct action_ attempts to
39
provide a "Marxist" (i.e. Leninist/Trotskyist) critique of the
40
current "Direct Action" based groups which came to notice at
41
various demonstrations across the world -- most famously in
42
Seattle, November 1999. He, correctly, links these groups and
43
currents with anarchism. However, his "critique" is nothing but
44
a self-contradictory collection of false assertions, lies and
45
nonsense, as we shall prove (indeed, his "critique" seems more
46
the product of envy at anarchist influence in these movements
47
than the product of scholarship or objectivity). That is why we
48
have decided to reply to his article -- it gives us an ideal
49
possibility to indicate the depths to which some Marxists will
50
swoop to distort anarchist politics and movements.
51
52
1. How does Mitchinson impoverish the politics of the direct action
53
groups?
54
55
He begins by noting that the "recent anti-capitalist demonstrations
56
have brought together many different groups protesting against
57
the destruction of the environment, racism, the exploitation of
58
the third world, and also many ordinary young people protesting
59
at the state of things in general. They have certainly shattered
60
the myth that everyone is happy and that the capitalist system is
61
accepted as the only possible form of society." Of course, this
62
is correct. What he fails to mention is that these demonstrations
63
and groups managed to do this *without* the "guidance" of any
64
Leninist party -- indeed, the vanguard parties are noticeable
65
by their absence and their frantic efforts to catch up with
66
these movements. This, of course, is not the first time this
67
has happened. Looking at every revolution we discover the
68
"revolutionary" parties either playing no role in their early
69
stages or a distinctly counter-productive role.
70
71
He states that "[a]ll around us we see the misery this system
72
causes. Famine, war, unemployment, homelessness and despair, these
73
are the violent acts that the system perpetrates against millions
74
every day." However, as much as these aspects of capitalism are
75
terrible, the anti-capitalist revolt expressed by many within the
76
direct action groups is much wider than this (standard) leftist
77
list. The movements, or at least parts of them, have a much more
78
radical critique of the evils of capitalism -- one that bases it
79
self on abolishing alienation, domination, wage slavery,
80
oppression, exploitation, the spiritual as well as material
81
poverty of everyday life, by means of self-management, autonomy,
82
self-organisation and direct action. They raise the possibility
83
of playful, meaningful, empowering and productive self-activity
84
to replace "tedious, over-tiring jobs" as well as the vision of
85
a libertarian communist (i.e. moneyless, stateless) society.
86
Mitchinson's account of the movements he is trying to critique
87
is as poverty stricken intellectually as the capitalist system
88
these movements are challenging. Leninists like Mitchinson,
89
instead of a swallowing a dose of humility and learning from
90
the very different ways this new wave of protest is being framed,
91
are trying to squeeze the protest into their own particular
92
one-dimensional model of revolution. Being unable to understand
93
the movements he is referring to, he pushes their vision into the
94
narrow confines of his ideology and distorts it.
95
96
He goes on to state that "[w]itnessing and experiencing this
97
destruction and chaos, young people everywhere are driven to
98
protest." Of course, anyone who is part of these movements
99
will tell you that a wide cross-section of age groups are
100
involved, not just "young people." However, Mitchinson's
101
comments on age are not surprising -- ever since Lenin,
102
Bolshevik inspired Marxists have attributed other, more
103
radical, political theories, analyses and visions to the
104
alleged youth of those who hold these opinions (in spite of
105
the facts). In other words, these ideas, they claim, are the
106
produce of immaturity, inexperience and youth and will,
107
hopefully, be grown out of. Just as many parents mutter to
108
themselves that their anarchist (or socialist, homosexual,
109
whatever) children will "grow out of it", Lenin and his
110
followers like Mitchinson consider themselves as the wiser,
111
older relations (perhaps a friendly Uncle or a Big Brother?)
112
of these "young" rebels and hope they will "grow out of"
113
their infantile politics.
114
115
The word patronising does not do Mitchinson justice!
116
117
2. Does anarchism "juxtapose" theory and action?
118
119
Now Mitchinson launches into his first strawman of his essay.
120
He asserts:
121
122
"However, the idea of getting involved in a political organisation
123
is a turn off for many, who understandably want to do something, and
124
do something now. In reality, the attempt to juxtapose organisation,
125
discussion, and debate with 'direct action' is pure sophistry."
126
127
We are not aware of any anarchist or direct action group which
128
does not discuss and debate their actions, the rationale of their
129
actions and the aims of their actions. These demonstrations that
130
"young people" apparently turn up at are, in fact, organised by
131
groups who have meetings, discuss their ideas, their objectives,
132
their politics, and so on. That much should be obvious. In
133
reality, it is Mitchinson who expresses "pure sophistry," not
134
the "many" who he claims act without thinking. And, of course,
135
he fails to mention the two days of meetings, discussion and
136
debate which took place the Saturday/Sunday before the May Day
137
actions in London. To mention the May Day 2000 conference would
138
confuse the reader with facts and so goes unmentioned.
139
140
He then asserts that the "ideas of Marxism are not the subject of
141
academic study, they are precisely a guide to action." Of course,
142
we have to point out here that the Marxist Parties Mitchinson urges
143
us to build did not take part in organising the actions he praises
144
(a few members of these parties did come along, on some of them,
145
to sell papers, of course, but this is hardly a "vanguard" role).
146
In general, the vanguard parties were noticeable by their absence
147
or, *at best*, their lack of numbers and involvement. If we judge
148
people by what they do, rather than what they say (as Marx urged),
149
then we must draw the conclusion that the Marxism of Mitchinson
150
is a guide to inaction rather than action.
151
152
Mitchinson continues by stating Marxists "are all in favour of action,
153
but it must be clearly thought out, with definite aims and objectives
154
if it is to succeed. Otherwise we end up with directionless action."
155
It would be impolite to point out that no anarchist or member of
156
a direct action organisation would disagree with this statement.
157
Every anti-capitalist demonstration has had a definite aim and
158
objective, was clearly thought out and organised. It did not
159
"just happen." Mitchinson presents us with a strawman so fragile
160
that even a breeze of reality would make it disintegrate.
161
162
The question is, of course, what kind of organisation do we create,
163
how do we determine our aims and objectives. That is the key question,
164
one that Mitchinson hides behind the strawman of organisation versus
165
non-organisation, planned action versus "directionless action." To
166
state it bluntly, the question is actually one of do we organise in
167
an authoritarian manner or a libertarian manner, not whether or not
168
we organise. Mitchinson may not see the difference (in which case he
169
thinks all organisation is "authoritarian") but for anarchists and
170
members of direct action groups the difference is vital.
171
172
He goes on to state:
173
174
"Furthermore without political organisation who decides what action is
175
to be taken, when and where? There can be no greater direct action than
176
the seizing of control over our own lives by the vast majority of
177
society. In that act lies the essence of revolution. Not just an
178
aimless 'direct action' but mass, democratic and conscious action,
179
the struggle not just against capitalism, but for a new form of
180
society, socialism."
181
182
Again Mitchinson presents us with the strawman of "conscious" action
183
verses "aimless" action. As noted above, the anti-capitalist demonstrations
184
*were* organised -- non-hierarchical groups decided collectively what
185
action was to be organised, when and where. The real question is
186
not organisation versus non-organisation but rather authoritarian
187
versus libertarian organisation. Either decision making from the
188
bottom up or decision making from the top-down. As for there
189
bring "no greater direct action" than revolution, well, anarchists
190
have been saying that for over one hundred years -- we don't need a
191
Marxist to tell us our own ideas!
192
193
3. How does Mitchinson distort the London May Day demo?
194
195
He then gets to the crux of the issue -- "So, what comes next?" He
196
goes on to assert:
197
198
"The organisers of the demo tell us this was not a protest in
199
order to secure changes, reforms apparently are a waste of time.
200
No, simply by participating in what they call the 'carnival' we become
201
better people, and eventually more and more people will participate,
202
until a critical mass is reached and we all ignore capitalism, don't
203
pay our bills, until they go away. What an infantile flight of fancy!"
204
205
Yes, indeed, what an infantile flight of fancy! However, the flight
206
is purely Mitchinson's. No one in RTS (or any other anarchist)
207
makes such a claim. Yes, RTS urged people to take part in a carnival
208
history were carnivalesque . . . But we are not waiting for these
209
moments of carnivalesque revolution, we are trying to merge them
210
into every moment of everyday life. We cannot live on one-off days,
211
a letting of stream, safety values for society enabling life to
212
return to normal the next day or for hierarchical domination to
213
return, as did in so many historical revolutions. Revolution is
214
not an act but a process and carnival can prepare us for this
215
process." [_Maybe_, p. 9] Thus "carnival" is *not* seen as an
216
end to itself (as Mitchinson asserts) but rather an aid to
217
the creation of a revolutionary movement. Mitchinson confuses
218
a celebration of May Day with an insurrection! In the words
219
of _Maybe_:
220
221
"And although Mayday is just one day, it seeks to incite
222
continuous creativity and action towards a radical remaking
223
of everyday life. Steeped in a history of daily struggle, of
224
'day in day out' organising for social change, but pulsating
225
with the celebration of renewal and fresh hope that returns
226
with the coming of summer. Mayday will always be a pivotal
227
moment." [_Maybe_, p. 5]
228
229
_Maybe_ is clear -- we need to organise the daily struggle and
230
enjoy ourselves while we are at it. Mitchinson' distortion of
231
that message is pitiful.
232
233
4. Do anarchists really think "the bosses will do nothing to defend
234
their system"?
235
236
He continues:
237
238
"The genuine intentions of those protesting is not open to question.
239
However, the way to hell is paved with many such good intentions. Are
240
we really to believe that whilst we all 'place ourselves outside of
241
capitalism', the bosses will do nothing to defend their system? This
242
ostrich like tactic of burying our heads in the sand until they go
243
away is not serious. Nor is it action. In reality, it is irresponsible,
244
indirect inaction."
245
246
The comment about "indirect inaction" is somewhat funny coming from
247
a political tendency which did not produce a movement of the importance
248
of Seattle 1999 and is now trying to recruit from it. But it would
249
be interesting to discover in which anarchist work comes the notion
250
that we do not think the bosses will not defend their system. Yes,
251
Lenin did claim that anarchists would "lay down their arms" after
252
a revolution, but as Murray Bookchin notes, anarchists are "not so
253
naive as to believe anarchism could be established overnight. In
254
imputing this notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted
255
the Russian anarchist's views. Nor did the anarchists . . . believe
256
that the abolition of the state involved 'laying down arms'
257
immediately after the revolution. . ." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_,
258
p. 213] Bakunin, for example, thought the "Commune would be
259
organised by the standing federation of the Barricades" and
260
that "the federation of insurgent associations, communes and
261
provinces . . . [would] organise a revolutionary force capable
262
of defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of the expansion
263
and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence
264
among the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of
265
the revolution." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 170
266
and p. 171]
267
268
Moreover, RTS actions have continually came into conflict with
269
the state and its forces of defence. Mitchinson seems to think
270
that the participants of RTS and its demonstrations are incapable
271
of actually understanding and learning from their experiences --
272
they have seen and felt the capitalist system defending itself.
273
Anyone on the J18, N30, A16 or M1 demos or just watching them
274
on TV would have seen the capitalist system defending itself
275
with vigour -- and the protestors *fighting back.* Rather than
276
acknowledge the obvious, Mitchinson asserts nonsense. The only
277
person burying their head in the sand is Mitchinson if he ignores
278
the experiences of his own senses (and the basic principles of
279
materialism) in favour of an ideological diatribe with no basis
280
in reality.
281
282
What *is* "irresponsible" is misrepresenting the viewpoints of
283
your enemies and expecting them not to point our your errors.
284
285
5. How does Mitchinson misrepresent anarchist organisation?
286
287
Mitchinson now moves onto the real enemy, anarchism. He asserts
288
that:
289
290
"Anarchist organisations have always hidden behind a facade of
291
'self-organisation'. They claim to have no leaders, no policy etc.
292
Yet who decides?"
293
294
Yes, anarchist groups claim to have no leaders but they do not
295
claim to be without policies. Anyone with any comprehension of
296
anarchist theory and history would know this (just one example,
297
Bakunin argued that we needed to establish "a genuine workers'
298
program -- the policy of the International [Workers Association]"
299
["The Policy of the International", _The Basic Bakunin_, p. 100]).
300
301
Mitchinson asks the question, if we do not have leaders, "who
302
decides?" That in itself exposes the authoritarian nature of his
303
politics and the Bolshevik style party. He obviously cannot
304
comprehend that, without leaders deciding things for us, we
305
manage our own affairs -- we decide the policy of our organisations
306
collectively, by the direct democracy of the membership.
307
Forgetting his early comment of that there is "no greater
308
direct action than the seizing of control over our own lives
309
by the vast majority of society," he now asks how the vast
310
majority of society can seize control over our own lives
311
without leaders to tell us what to do!
312
313
Anarchists reject the idea of leaders -- instead we argue
314
for the "leadership of ideas." As we discuss this concept in
315
section J.3.6 and so will not do so here. However, the key
316
concept is that anarchists seek to spread their ideas by
317
discussing their politics *as equals* in popular organisations
318
and convincing the mass assemblies of these bodies by
319
argument. Rather than using these bodies to be elected to
320
positions of power (i.e. leadership as it is traditionally
321
understood) anarchists consider it essential that power
322
remains in the hands of the base of an organisation and
323
argue that the policies of the organisation be decided
324
by the member directly in assemblies and co-ordinated
325
by conferences of mandated, recallable delegates (see
326
section A.2.9 for more discussion).
327
328
This is to be expected, of course, as anarchists believe
329
that a free society can only be created by organisations
330
which reflect the principles of that society. Hence we
331
see policies being made by those affected by them and
332
oppose attempts to turn self-managed organisations into
333
little more than vehicles to elect "leaders." A free
334
society is a self-managed one and can only be created by
335
self-management in the class struggle or revolutionary
336
process. All that revolutionaries should do is try and
337
influence the decisions these organisations make by
338
discussing our ideas with their membership -- simply
339
as any other member could in the mass assemblies the
340
organisation is built upon. Any attempt by revolutionaries
341
to seize power upon behalf of these organisations means
342
destroying their revolutionary potential and the
343
revolution itself by replacing the participation of
344
all with the power of a few (the party).
345
346
Thus anarchist theory and practice is very clear on the
347
question "who decides" -- it is those who are affected by
348
the question via group assemblies and conferences of
349
mandated, recallable delegates. Rather than have "no
350
policy," policy in an anarchist organisation is decided
351
directly by the membership. Without "leaders" -- without
352
power delegated into the hands of a few -- who else *could*
353
make the decisions and policy? That Mitchinson cannot
354
comprehend this implies that he cannot envision a society
355
without a few telling the many what to do.
356
357
He continues:
358
359
"If there was no leadership and no policy then there could
360
be no action of any kind. The recent demonstrations have been
361
highly organised and co-ordinated on an international scale.
362
Good, so it should be. However, without organisation and democracy
363
no-one, except a clique at the top, has any say in why, where and
364
when. Such a movement will never bring international capital
365
trembling to its knees."
366
367
Firstly, we must point out that these demonstrations which have
368
spread like wild-fire across the world have, most definitely,
369
made international capital nervous. Secondly, we must point
370
out that no Leninist vanguards were involved in organising them
371
(a few members turned up to sell papers later, once their
372
significance had registered with the party leadership). Thirdly,
373
we must point out that no Leninist vanguard has made "international
374
capital" tremble in the knees for quite a few decades -- since
375
1917, only Stalinist vanguards have had any effect (and, of
376
course, "international capital" soon realised they could work
377
with the Bolsheviks and other "Communist" leaders as one
378
ruling elite with another). It seems somewhat ironic that a
379
Leninist, whose movement was noticeable in its absence, mocks
380
the first movement to scare the ruling class for nearly 30 years.
381
382
Secondly, we must note that the policy decided upon by the
383
multitude of groups across the world was decided upon by the
384
members of those groups. They practised organisation and
385
*direct* democracy to make their policy decisions and
386
implement them. Given that Mitchinson wonders how people
387
can make decisions without leaders, his comments about
388
rule by "a clique at the top" are somewhat ironic. As the
389
history of the Russian Revolution indicates, a highly
390
centralised state system (which mimics the highly
391
centralised party) soon results in rule by the top
392
party officials, not by the mass of people.
393
394
Mitchinson again decides to flog his fallacy of organisation
395
versus non-organisation:
396
397
"One of the best known anarchist groups in Britain, Reclaim the
398
Streets, save the game away in their spoof Mayday publication,
399
'Maybe'. Incidentally, who wrote these articles, who decided what
400
went in and what didn't, who edited it, where did the money come
401
from? Our intention here is not to accuse them of dodgy financing
402
- simply to point out that this 'no leaders' stuff is a
403
self-organised myth."
404
405
It states who put together _MayDay_ on page 5 of the paper. It
406
was "an organic group of 'guerrilla gardeners'" -- in other
407
words, members of _Reclaim the Streets_ who desired to produce
408
the paper for that event. These people would have joined the
409
group producing it via the weekly RTS open meetings and would
410
have been held accountable to that same open meeting. No great
411
mystery there -- if you have even the slightest vision of how
412
a non-hierarchical organisation works. Rather than being a "myth",
413
RTS shows that we do not need to follow leaders -- instead we
414
can manage our own organisations directly and freely participate
415
in projects organised via the main open meeting. Writing articles,
416
editing, and so on are not the work of "leaders" -- rather they
417
are simply tasks that need doing. They do not imply a leadership
418
role -- if they did then every hack journalist is a "leader."
419
420
He continues to attack what he cannot understand:
421
422
"On page 20 they announce 'Reclaim the streets is non-hierarchical,
423
spontaneous and self-organised. We have no leaders, no committee,
424
no board of directors, no spokes people. There is no centralised unit
425
for decision making, strategic planning and production of ideology.
426
There is no membership and no formalised commitment. There is no
427
master plan and no pre-defined agenda.'
428
429
"There are two problems here. Firstly who is 'we', who made the
430
above statement, and who decided it. Secondly, if it were true, it
431
would not be something of which to be proud. Whether you like it or
432
not, there is no way the capitalist system will ever be overthrown by
433
such a haphazard and slipshod method."
434
435
Taking the first issue, "who is 'we,' who made the above statement,
436
and who decided it." Why, it is the membership of RTS -- decided
437
via their weekly open meeting (as mentioned on that page). That
438
Mitchinson cannot comprehend this says a lot about his politics
439
and vision. He cannot comprehend self-management, direct democracy.
440
He seems not to be able to understand that groups can make decisions
441
collectively, without having to elect leaders to make any decisions
442
for them.
443
444
Taking the second issue, it is clear that Mitchinson fails to
445
understand the role of RTS (and other anarchist groups). Anarchists
446
do not try to overthrow capitalism *on behalf of others* -- they
447
urge them to overthrow it themselves, by their own direct action.
448
The aim of groups like RTS is to encourage people to take direct
449
action, to fight the powers that be and, in the process, create
450
their own organs of self-management and resistance. Such a
451
process of working class self-activity and self-organisation
452
in struggle is the starting process of every revolution. People
453
in struggle create their own organisations -- such as soviets
454
(workers' councils), factory committees, community assemblies --
455
through which they start to manage their own affairs and,
456
hopefully, overthrow the state and abolish capitalism. It is
457
not the task of RTS to overthrow capitalism, it is the task
458
of the whole population.
459
460
Moreover, many anarchists do see the need for a specific anarchist
461
organisation -- three national federations exist in the UK, for
462
example. RTS does not need to organise in this fashion simply
463
because such groups *already* exist. It is not its role -- its
464
role is a means to encourage self-activity and direct action
465
as well as raising libertarian ideas in a popular manner. For
466
more "serious" political organisation, people can and do turn
467
to other anarchist groups and federations.
468
469
The street carnival principle of RTS is precisely the type of
470
organising anarchists excel at -- namely fun organising that
471
catches the fun and excitement of popular direct action and,
472
most importantly, *gets people out on the streets* -- something
473
Marxists have failed to do very well (if at all). It's a small
474
step from organising a street carnival to further, "more serious"
475
organising. Anarchist revolution is about bringing joy back into
476
human lives, not endless (and often dishonest) polemics on the
477
ideas of long dead philosophers. Rather, it is about creating a
478
philosophy which, while inspired by past thinkers, is not
479
subservient to them and aims to base itself on *current*
480
struggles and needs rather than past ones. It is also about
481
building a new political culture, one that is popular, active,
482
street-based (versus ivory-tower elitist), and above all,
483
fun. Only this way can we catch the imagination of everyday
484
people and move them from resigned apathy to active resistance.
485
The Marxists have tried their approach, and it has been a
486
resounding failure -- everyday people consider Marxism at
487
best irrelevant, and at worst, inhuman and lifeless.
488
Fortunately, anarchists are not following the Marxist
489
model of organising, having learned from history
490
491
Thus Mitchinson fails to understand the role of RTS or its
492
position in the UK anarchist movement.
493
494
He then asserts:
495
496
"There is no theory, no coherent analysis of society, no alternative
497
programme. To brag of a lack of direction, a lack of purpose and a
498
lack of coherence, in the face of such a highly organised and brutal
499
enemy as international capital, is surely the height of irresponsibility."
500
501
Firstly, anyone reading _Maybe_ or other RTS publications will
502
quickly see there is theory, coherent analysis and an alternative
503
vision. As Mitchinson has obviously read _Maybe_ we can only
504
assume his claim is a conscious lie. Secondly, RTS in the quoted
505
passage clearly do *not* "brag of a lack of direction, a lack of
506
purpose and a lack of coherence." They do state there is no
507
"centralised unit for decision-making" -- which is true, they
508
have a *decentralised* unit for decision-making (direct democracy
509
in open meetings). There is "no master-plan," etc. as any plans
510
are decided upon by these open meetings. There is no pre-defined
511
agenda because, as a democratic organisation, it is up to the
512
open meeting to define their own agenda.
513
514
It is only Mitchinson's *assumption* that only centralised parties,
515
with leaders making the decisions, can have "direction," "purpose"
516
and "coherence." As can be seen *by their actions* that RTS *does*
517
have direction, purpose and coherence. Needless to say, while
518
other anarchists may be critical about RTS and its actions, we
519
do not deny that it has been an effective organisation, involving
520
a great many people in its actions who would probably not be involved
521
in political activities. Rather than being "irresponsible," RTS
522
shows the validity of libertarian organisation and its effectiveness.
523
No Marxist Party has remotely approached RTS's successes in terms
524
of involving people in political actions. This is hardly a surprise.
525
526
6. How does Mitchinson define anarchism wrongly?
527
528
Mitchinson states:
529
530
"In reality the leaders of these movements are not devoid of
531
ideology, they are anarchists. Anarchism is not simply a term of
532
abuse, it comes from the Greek word 'anarchos' meaning 'without
533
government'. To anarchists the state - the institutions of
534
government, the army, police, courts etc. - is the root cause
535
of all that is wrong in the world. It must be destroyed and
536
replaced not with any new form of government, but the immediate
537
introduction of a stateless society."
538
539
Firstly, "anarchos" actually means "without authority," or
540
"contrary to authority" (as Kropotkin put it). It does *not*
541
mean "without government" as such (although it commonly is
542
used that way). This means that anarchism does *not* consider
543
the state as "the root of all that is wrong with the world" --
544
we consider it, like capitalism (wage slavery), patriarchy,
545
hierarchy in general, etc., as a symptom of a deeper problem,
546
namely authority (or, more precisely, authoritarian social
547
relations, hierarchical power -- of which class power is a
548
subset). Therefore anarchist theory is concerned with more than
549
just the state -- it is against capitalism just as much as
550
it is against the state, for example.
551
552
Thus, to state the obvious, as anyone familiar with anarchist
553
theory could tell you, anarchists do not think that "the state"
554
is the root of all that is wrong in the world. Marxists have
555
asserted this for years -- unfortunately for them, repetition
556
does not make something true! Rather, anarchists see the
557
state as *one* of the causes of evil in the world and the main
558
protector of all the rest. We also stress that in order to
559
combat all the evils, we need to destroy the state so that
560
we are in a position to abolish the other evils by being in
561
control of our own lives. For example, in order to abolish
562
capitalism -- i.e. for workers' to seize the means of life --
563
the state, which protects property rights, must be destroyed.
564
Without doing so, the police and army will come and take
565
back that which the workers' have taken. However, we do not
566
claim that the state causes all of our problems -- we do
567
claim that getting rid of the state is an essential act,
568
on which many others are dependent.
569
570
As Brian Morris argues:
571
572
"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow
573
view of politics: that it sees the state as the fount of
574
all evil, ignoring other aspects of social and economic
575
life. This is a misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly
576
derives from the way anarchism has been defined, and
577
partly because Marxist historians have tried to exclude
578
anarchism from the broader socialist movement. But when
579
one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . .
580
as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is
581
clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision.
582
It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation,
583
and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it
584
has been of the state." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," _Anarchy:
585
A Journal of Desire Armed_, no. 45, p, p. 40]
586
587
As can be seen, Mitchinson repeats into the usual Marxist straw
588
man.
589
590
7. Does anarchism reject fighting for reforms?
591
592
After asserting the usual Marxist falsehoods about anarchism,
593
he moves on:
594
595
"This opposition to the state and authority leads to a rejection of
596
participation in any form of parliamentary activity, belonging to a
597
political party or fighting for any reforms, that is political change
598
through the state."
599
600
Again Mitchinson smuggles in a falsehood into his "analysis."
601
Anarchists do not reject "fighting for any reforms" -- far from
602
it. We do reject parliamentary activity, that is true, but we
603
think that reforms can and must be won. We see such reforms
604
coming via the direct action of those who desire them -- for
605
example, by workers striking for better working conditions, more
606
wages and so. Anyone with even a passing awareness of anarchist
607
thought would know this. Indeed, that is what direct action
608
means -- it was coined by French anarcho-syndicalists to describe
609
the struggle for reforms within capitalism!
610
611
As for rejecting parliamentary activity, yes, anarchists do
612
reject this form of "action." However, we do so for reasons
613
Mitchinson fails to mention. Section J.2 of the FAQ discusses
614
the reasons why anarchists support direct action and oppose
615
electioneering as a means of both reform and for revolution.
616
617
Similarly, anarchists reject political parties but we do not
618
reject political organisations -- i.e. specific anarchist
619
groups. The difference is that political parties are generally
620
organised in a hierarchical fashion and anarchist federations
621
are not -- we try and create the new world when we organise
622
rather than reproducing the traits of the current, bourgeois,
623
one.
624
625
Needless to say, Mitchinson seeks to recruit the people he is
626
slandering and so holds out an olive-branch by stating that
627
"[o]f course, Marxism is opposed to the brutal domination of the
628
capitalist state too. Marx saw a future society without a state but
629
instead 'an association in which the free development of each is the
630
condition for the free development of all.' That is a self-governing
631
people. The question however is how can this be achieved?"
632
633
Yes, as Bakunin argued, Marxists do not reject our programme out of
634
hand. They claim to also seek a free society and so Mitchinson is
635
correct -- the question is how can this be achieved. Anarchists argue
636
that a self-governing people can only be achieved by self-governing
637
means -- "Bakunin . . . advocated socialist (i.e., libertarian) means
638
in order to achieve a socialist (i.e., libertarian) society." [Arthur
639
Lehning, "Introduction", _Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 27]
640
Thus means and ends must be consistent -- revolutionary movements
641
must be organised in a way that reflects the society we want to create.
642
Thus a self-governing society can only be created by self-governing
643
organisations and a self-governing movement. If the revolutionary
644
movement reflect bourgeois society -- for example, is hierarchical --
645
then it cannot create a free society. That is the rationale for the
646
way anarchist groups organise, including RTS. Marxists, as we will see,
647
disagree and consider how a revolutionary movement organises itself
648
as irrelevant.
649
650
Also, we must note that earlier Mitchinson denied that a self-governing
651
organisation could exist when he was discussing RTS. He asserted that
652
"[i]f there was no leadership and no policy then there could be no
653
action of any kind." Now he claims that it is possible, but only
654
*after* the revolution. We will note the obvious contradiction --
655
how do people become capable of self-government post-revolution if
656
they do not practice it pre-revolution and, obviously, during the
657
revolution?
658
659
8. Does anarchism see the state as the root of all problems?
660
661
Mitchinson moves on to assert that:
662
663
"Since anarchism sees in the state the root of all problems, it
664
therefore believes these problems will be resolved by the destruction
665
of the state."
666
667
As noted above, anarchists do *not* see in the state the root of all
668
problems. We do urge the destruction of the state but that is because
669
the state is the protector of existing society and in order to transform
670
that society we need get rid of it. Kropotkin, for example, was well
671
aware of "the evil done by Capitalism and the State that supports it."
672
[_Evolution and Environment_, p. 83] Rather than seeing the State as
673
the root of all evil, anarchists are well aware that evil is caused
674
by many things -- particularly capitalism -- and that the state, as
675
well as causing its own evils, supports and protects others. Thus
676
anarchists are aware that the state is a tool for minority rule and
677
only one source of evil.
678
679
Mitchinson, after misrepresenting anarchist thought, states:
680
681
"Marxism, meanwhile, sees the division of society into classes, a minority
682
who own the means of producing wealth, and the majority of us whose labour
683
is the source of that wealth, as the crux of the matter. It is this class
684
division of society which gives rise to the state - because the minority
685
need a special force to maintain their rule over the majority - which
686
has evolved over thousands of years into the complicated structures we
687
see today."
688
689
Anarchists would agree, as far as this goes. Bakunin argued that the State
690
"is authority, domination, and forced, organised by the property-owning
691
and so-called enlightened classes against the masses." He saw the social
692
revolution as destroying capitalism and the state at the same time, that
693
is "to overturn the State's domination, and that of the privileged classes
694
whom it solely represents." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 140] The idea that
695
the state is a means to ensure class rule is one anarchists, as can be
696
seen, would agree with.
697
698
However, anarchists do not reduce their understanding of the state to
699
this simplistic Marxist analysis. While being well aware that the state
700
is the means of ensuring the domination of an economic elite, anarchists
701
recognise that the state machine also has interests of its own. The
702
state, for anarchists, is the delegation of power into the hands of
703
a few. This creates, by its very nature, a privileged position for
704
those at the top of the hierarchy:
705
706
"A government, that is a group of people entrusted with making the
707
laws and empowered to use the collective force to oblige each
708
individual to obey them, is already a privileged class and cut
709
off from the people. As any constituted body would do, it will
710
instinctively seek to extend its powers, to be beyond public
711
control, to impose its own policies and to give priority to
712
its special interests. Having been put in a privileged position,
713
the government is already at odds with the people whose strength
714
it disposes of." [Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 34]
715
716
Thus, while it is true that the state (particularly under capitalism)
717
acts as the agent of the capitalist class, it does not mean that
718
it does not have interests of its own. The State has developed as
719
a means of imposing minority rule -- that much anarchists and
720
Marxists can agree upon. To do so it has developed certain features,
721
notably delegation of power into the hands of a few. This feature
722
of the state is a product of its function. However, function and
723
feature are inseparable -- retain the feature and the function
724
will be re-established. In other words, maintain the state and
725
minority rule will be re-established.
726
727
The simplistic class analysis of the state has always caused
728
Marxists problems, particularly Trotskyists who used it to deny
729
the obvious class nature of Stalinist Russia. Rather than see
730
the USSR as a class society in which the State bureaucracy
731
exploited and oppressed the working class for its own benefits,
732
Trotskyists argued it was an autocratic, privileged bureaucracy
733
in a classless society. As anarchist Camillo Berneri argued:
734
735
"In history there is no absurdity. An autocratic bureaucracy
736
is a class, therefore it is not absurd that it should exist in
737
a society where classes remain -- the bureaucratic class and
738
the proletarian class. If the USSR was a 'classless' society,
739
it would also be a society without a bureaucratic autocracy,
740
which is the natural fruit of the permanent existence of the
741
State." ["The State and Classes", _Cienfuegos Press Anarchist
742
Review_, no, 4, p. 49]
743
744
The weakness (or incompleteness) of the Marxist understanding of
745
the state can best be seen by Trotsky's and his followers lack
746
of understanding of Stalinism. As the state owned all the land
747
and means of production, there could be no classes and so the
748
Soviet Union must be a classless society. However, the obvious
749
privileges of the bureaucracy could not be denied (as Trotsky
750
was once a leading bureaucrat, he saw and experienced them at
751
first hand). But as the state bureaucracy could not be a class
752
and have class interests (by definition), Trotsky could not see
753
the wood for the trees. The actual practice of Leninism in power
754
is enough to expose its own theoretical weaknesses.
755
756
9. Why is Mitchinson wrong about the "Abolishion [i.e. Abolition] of
757
the state"?
758
759
Mitchinson moves on to argue that the "modern capitalist state can
760
wear many guises, monarchy, republic, dictatorship, but in the end
761
its purpose remains the same, to maintain the minority rule of the
762
capitalist class. Marxism's goal therefore is not simply to abolish
763
the state, but to put an end to class society." Needless to say,
764
that is also anarchism's goal. As Bakunin argued, "political
765
transformation . . . [and] economic transformation . . . must be
766
accomplished together and simultaneously." [_The Basic Bakunin_,
767
p. 106] So, as can be seen, anarchism's goal is not simply
768
abolishing the state, but to put an end to class society. That
769
anarchists have always argued the state and capitalism must be
770
destroyed at the same time is easily discovered from reading
771
their works.
772
773
Continuing this theme he argues that the state "was born with
774
the split of society into classes to defend private property. So
775
long as there are classes there will be a state. So, how can
776
class society be ended? Not by its denial, but only by the
777
victory of one of the contending classes. Triumph for capitalism
778
spells ruin for millions."
779
780
Of course, we could point out here that many anthropologists
781
disagree with the claim that the state is a product of class
782
society. As Michael Taylor summarises, the "evidence does not
783
give this proposition a great deal of support. Much of the
784
evidence which has been offered in support of it shows only
785
that the primary states, not long after their emergence, were
786
economically stratified. But this is of course consistent also
787
with the simultaneous rise . . . of political and economic
788
stratification, or with the *prior* development of the
789
state -- i.e. of *political* stratification -- and the
790
creation of economic stratification by the ruling class."
791
[_Community, Anarchy and Liberty_, p. 132]
792
793
Also, of course, as should be obvious from what we have said
794
previously, anarchists do not think class society can be ended
795
by "denial." As is clear from even a quick reading of any
796
anarchist thinker, anarchists seek to end class society as
797
well as the state. However, we reject as simplistic the Marxist
798
notion that the state exists purely to defend classes. The
799
state has certain properties *because it is a state* and one
800
of these is that it creates a bureaucratic class around it
801
due to its centralised, hierarchical nature. Within capitalism,
802
the state bureaucracy is part of the ruling class and (generally)
803
under the control of the capitalist class. However, to generalise
804
from this specific case is wrong as the state bureaucracy is
805
a class in itself -- and so trying to abolish classes without
806
abolishing the state is doomed to failure.
807
808
10. Why is Mitchinson's comment that we face either "socialism or
809
barbarism" actually undermine his case?
810
811
Mitchinson continues:
812
813
"As Marx once explained the choice before us is not socialism or the
814
status quo, but socialism or barbarism."
815
816
We should point out that it Rosa Luxemburg who is usually associated
817
with this quote. She made her famous comment during the First World
818
War. The start of this war saw the Marxist German Social Democratic
819
Party (and a host of others) vote for war credits in Parliament.
820
This party was a mass workers' party which aimed to used every means,
821
including elections, to gain reforms for the working class. The net
822
end result of this strategy was the voting for war credits and the
823
support of their state and ruling class in the war -- that is, the
824
betrayal of the fundamental principles of socialism.
825
826
This event did not happen out of the blue. It was the end result of
827
years of working within the bourgeois political system, of using
828
elections ("political activity") as a means of struggle. The Social
829
Democratic Parties had already been plagued with reformist elements
830
for years. These elements, again, did not come from nowhere but were
831
rather the response to what the party was actually doing. They desired
832
to reform the party to bring its rhetoric in-line with its practice.
833
As one of the most distinguished historians of this period put it,
834
the "distinction between the contenders remained largely a subjective
835
one, a difference of ideas in the evaluation of reality rather
836
than a difference in the realm of action." [C. Schorske, _German
837
Social Democracy_, p. 38] The debacle of 1914 was a logical result
838
of the means chosen, the evidence was already there for all to
839
see (except, apparently, Lenin who praised the "fundamentals of
840
parliamentary tactics" of the German and International Social
841
Democracy and how they were "at the same time implacable on questions
842
of principle and always directed to the accomplishment of the final
843
aim" in his obituary of August Bebel in 1913! [Marx, Engels and Lenin,
844
_Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 248])
845
846
Needless to say, this result had been predicted by Bakunin over
847
40 years previously. And Mitchinson wants us to repeat this strategy?
848
As Marx said, history repeats itself -- first it is tragedy, second
849
time it is farce.
850
851
11. Why is Mitchinson wrong to assert anarchists do not believe in
852
defending a revolution?
853
854
Mitchinson argues that the "victory of the working class can only mean the
855
destruction of the capitalist state. Will the capitalists take defeat like
856
sporting ladies and gentlemen, retiring quietly to the pavilion? No, all
857
history suggests that they would not. The workers would need to create a
858
new state, for the first time to defend the rule of the majority over the
859
minority."
860
861
Yes, indeed, all history *does* show that a ruling class will not retire
862
quietly and a revolution will need to defend itself. If anarchists *did*
863
believe that they would retire peacefully then Marxists would be correct
864
to attack us. However, Marxist assertions are false. Indeed, they must
865
think anarchists are morons if they genuinely do think we do not believe
866
in defending a revolution. A few quotes should suffice to expose these
867
Marxist claims as lies:
868
869
"Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the
870
Barricades. . . [T]he federation of insurgent associations, communes
871
and provinces . . . [would] organise a revolutionary force capable
872
of defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of the expansion
873
and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence
874
among the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of
875
the revolution." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 170-1]
876
877
"[L]et us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] . . .
878
Paris will naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can,
879
in revolutionary style, after the workers have joined into
880
associations and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of
881
labour, every kind of capital and building; armed and organised
882
by streets and *quartiers*, they will form the revolutionary
883
federation of all the *quartiers*, the federative commune. . .
884
All the French and foreign revolutionary communes will then
885
send representatives to organise the necessary common services
886
. . . and to organise common defence against the enemies of
887
the Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 178-9]
888
889
Bakunin was well aware that revolution implied "civil war" -- i.e.
890
attempts by the ruling class to maintain its power (see, for example,
891
his "Letters to a Frenchman" in _Bakunin on Anarchism_). As can
892
be seen, Bakunin was well aware of the needs to defend a revolution
893
after destroying the state and abolishing capitalism. Similarly
894
we discover Malatesta arguing that we should "[a]rm all the population,"
895
and the "creation of a voluntary militia, without powers to interfere
896
as militia in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed
897
attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to
898
resist outside intervention by countries as yet not in a state of
899
revolution." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 170 and p. 166] In Malatesta's
900
words:
901
902
"But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still
903
unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to
904
reduce free people to a state of slavery once again. Would this
905
people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men
906
are needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical
907
knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing
908
to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities
909
of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the
910
experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to
911
defend their own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone
912
knows that before the corps of volunteers (anarchist formations)
913
thrones topple, and regular armies composed of conscripts or
914
mercenaries disappear. . . [Some people] seem almost to believe
915
that after having brought down government and private property
916
we would allow both to be quietly built up again, because of a
917
respect for the *freedom* of those who might feel the need to
918
be rulers and property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting
919
our ideas!" [_Anarchy_, pp. 40-1]
920
921
Not only do we have this theoretical position, we can also point
922
to concrete historical examples -- the Makhnovist movement in
923
the Russian Revolution and the CNT militias during the Spanish
924
Revolution, among others -- that prove that anarchists do recognise
925
the need and importance of defending a successful revolution.
926
927
Therefore, statements asserting that anarchists are against defending
928
a revolution are either spreading a conscious lie or a product of
929
deep ignorance.
930
931
Thus the question is *not* one of defending or not defending a revolution.
932
The question is *how* do we defend it (and, another key question, what
933
*kind* of revolution do we aim for). Marxists urge us to "create a
934
new state, for the first time to defend the rule of the majority
935
over the minority." Anarchists reply that every state is based on
936
the delegation of power into the hands of a minority and so cannot
937
be used to defend the rule of the majority over the minority. Rather,
938
it would be the rule of those who claim to represent the majority.
939
The confusion between people power and party power is at the root
940
of why Leninism is not revolutionary.
941
942
Mitchinson then quotes Lenin and Trotsky to defend his assertion:
943
944
"The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all
945
disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the
946
state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must
947
temporarily make use of the instruments resources and methods of
948
state power against the exploiters." [Lenin]
949
950
"Marxists are wholly in agreement with the anarchists in regard to
951
the final goal: the liquidation of the state. Marxists are statist
952
only to the extent that one cannot achieve the liquidation of the
953
state simply by ignoring it." [Trotsky]
954
955
Of course, quoting Lenin or Trotsky when they make a false assertion
956
does not turn lies into truth. As proven above, anarchists are well
957
aware of the necessity of overthrowing the state by revolution *and*
958
defending that revolution against attempts to defeat it. To state
959
otherwise is to misrepresent anarchist theory on this subject.
960
Moreover, despite Trotsky's claims, anarchists are aware that you
961
do not destroy something by ignoring it. The real question is thus
962
*not* whether to defend a revolution or whether to shatter the state
963
machine. The questions are, *how* do you shatter the state, what do
964
you replace existing society with and how do you defend a revolution.
965
To state otherwise is to build a strawman -- unfortunately much of
966
Lenin's "masterpiece" _The State and Revolution_ is based on
967
destroying this self-created strawman.
968
969
12. Would the "workers' state" really be different, as Mitchinson claims?
970
971
Mitchinson argues that from "the very beginning this would be
972
like no previous state machine. From day one it would be in effect
973
a semi-state." The question is, for anarchists, whether this
974
"semi-state" is marked by the delegation of power into the hands
975
of a government. If so, then the "semi-state" is no such thing --
976
it is a state like any other and so an instrument of minority rule.
977
Yes, this minority may state it represents the majority but in
978
practice it can only represent itself and claim that is what the
979
majority desires.
980
981
Hence, for anarchists, "the essence of the state . . . [is]
982
centralised power *or to put it another way the coercive
983
authority* of which the state enjoys the monopoly, in that
984
organisation of violence know as 'government'; in the
985
hierarchical despotism, juridical, police and military
986
despotism that imposes laws on everyone." [Luigi Fabbri,
987
Op. Cit., pp. 24-5] The so-called "semi-state" is nothing
988
of the kind -- it is a centralised power in which a few
989
govern the many. Therefore, the "workers' state" would be
990
"workers" in name only.
991
992
Mitchinson continues:
993
994
"The task of all previous revolutions was to seize state power.
995
From the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871 Marx and Engels
996
concluded that it would not be possible for the workers to simply
997
use the old state apparatus, they would instead have to replace
998
it with an entirely new one, to serve the interests of the
999
majority and lay the basis for a socialist society."
1000
1001
Needless to say, he forgets the *key* question -- *who* is to seize
1002
power. Is it the majority, directly, or a minority (the leaders of
1003
a party) who claim to represent the majority. Leninists are clear,
1004
it is to be the party, not the working class as a whole. They
1005
confuse party power with class power. In the words of Lenin:
1006
1007
"The very presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of the
1008
Party *or* dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of
1009
the leaders *or* dictatorship (Party) of the masses?' -- is
1010
evidence of the most incredible and hopeless confusion of
1011
mind . . . [because] classes are usually . . . led by political
1012
parties. . . "
1013
1014
And:
1015
1016
"To go so far in this matter as to draw a contrast in general
1017
between the dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of
1018
the leaders, is ridiculously absurd and stupid." [_Left-wing
1019
Communism: An Infantile Disorder_, pp. 25-6 and p. 27]
1020
1021
However, what is *truly* stupid is confusing the rule by a
1022
minority with that of the majority managing their own affairs.
1023
The two things are different, they generate different social
1024
relationships and to confuse the two is to lay the ground
1025
work for the rule by a bureaucratic elite, a dictatorship
1026
of state officials *over* the working class.
1027
1028
Now we come to the usual Leninist claims about Bolshevik theory:
1029
1030
"To ensure that the workers maintain control over this state, Lenin
1031
argued for the election of all officials who should be held accountable
1032
and subject to recall, and paid no more than the wage of a skilled
1033
worker. All bureaucratic tasks should be rotated. There should be no
1034
special armed force standing apart from the people, and we would add,
1035
all political parties except fascists should be allowed to organise."
1036
1037
This is what Lenin, essentially, said he desired in _The State
1038
and Revolution_ (Mitchinson misses out one key aspect, to which we
1039
will return later). Anarchists reply in three ways.
1040
1041
Firstly, we note that "much that passes for 'Marxism' in _State
1042
and Revolution_ is pure anarchism -- for example, the substitution
1043
of revolutionary militias for professional armed bodies and the
1044
substitution of organs of self-management for parliamentary bodies.
1045
What is authentically Marxist in Lenin's pamphlet is the demand
1046
for 'strict centralism,' the acceptance of a 'new' bureaucracy,
1047
and the identification of soviets with a state." [Murray Bookchin,
1048
_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 213] As an example, let us look at
1049
the recall of "officials" (inspired by the Paris Commune). We find
1050
this in Bakunin's and Proudhon's work *before* it was applied by
1051
the Communards and praised by Marx. Bakunin in 1868 argued for a
1052
"Revolutionary Communal Council" composed of "delegates . . .
1053
vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates."
1054
[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 170-1] Proudhon's
1055
election manifesto of 1848 argued for "universal suffrage and as a
1056
consequence of universal suffrage, we want implementation of the
1057
binding mandate. Politicians balk at it! Which means that in their
1058
eyes, the people, in electing representatives, do not appoint
1059
mandatories but rather abjure their sovereignty! That is assuredly
1060
not socialism: it is not even democracy." [_No Gods, No Masters_,
1061
vol. 1, p. 63] As can be seen, Lenin's recommendations were first
1062
proposed by anarchists.
1063
1064
Thus the positive aspects of Lenin's work are libertarian in nature,
1065
*not* Marxist as such. Indeed given how much time is spent on
1066
the Paris Commune (an essentially libertarian revolt obviously
1067
inspired by Proudhon's ideas) his work is more libertarian than
1068
Marxist, as Bookchin makes clear. It is the non-libertarian aspects
1069
which helped to undermine the anarchist elements of the work.
1070
1071
Secondly, Lenin does not mention, never mind discuss, the role of
1072
the Bolshevik Party would have in the new "semi-state." Indeed,
1073
the party is mentioned only in passing. That in itself indicates
1074
the weakness of using _The State and Revolution_ as a guide book
1075
to Leninist theory or practice. Given the importance of the role
1076
of the party in Lenin's previous and latter works, it suggests
1077
that to quote _The State and Revolution_ as proof of Leninism's
1078
democratic heart leaves much to be desired. And even _The State
1079
and Revolution_, in its one serious reference to the Party, is
1080
ambiguous in the extreme:
1081
1082
"By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard
1083
of the proletariat which is capable of assuming power and *of
1084
leading the whole people* to Socialism, of directing and
1085
organising the new order, of being the teacher, the guide, the
1086
leader of all the toiling and exploited in the task of building
1087
up their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the
1088
bourgeoisie." [_The Essential Lenin_, p. 288]
1089
1090
Is it the vanguard *or* the proletariat which is "capable of
1091
assuming power"? The answer is important as a *social* revolution
1092
requires the fullest participation of the formerly oppressed
1093
masses in the management of their own affairs. In the context
1094
of the rest of _The State and Revolution_ it could be argued
1095
it is the proletariat. However, this cannot be squared with
1096
Lenin's (or Trotsky's) post-October arguments and practices
1097
or the resolution of the Second World Congress of the Communist
1098
International which stated that "[e]very class struggle is a
1099
political struggle. The goal of this struggle . . . is the
1100
conquest of political power. Political power cannot be seized,
1101
organised and operated except through a political party."
1102
[cited by Duncan Hallas, _The Comintern_, p. 35] It is obvious
1103
that if the party rules, the working class does not. A socialist
1104
society cannot be built without the participation, self-activity
1105
and self-management of the working class. Thus the question
1106
of *who* makes decisions and *how* they do so is essential --
1107
if it is not the masses then the slide into bureaucracy is
1108
inevitable.
1109
1110
Thus to quote _The State and Revolution_ proves nothing for
1111
anarchists -- it does not discuss the key question of the party
1112
and so fails to present a clear picture of Leninist politics
1113
and their immediate aims. As soon becomes clear if you look
1114
at Leninism in power -- i.e. what it actually did when it had
1115
the chance, to which we now turn.
1116
1117
Thirdly, we point to what he actually *did* in power. In this we
1118
follow Marx, who argued that we should judge people by what they
1119
do rather than what they say. We will concentrate on the pre-Civil
1120
War (October 1917 to May 1918) period to indicate that this breaking
1121
of promises started *before* the horrors of Civil War can be claimed
1122
to have forced these decisions onto the Bolsheviks.
1123
1124
Before the out-break of Civil War, the Bolsheviks had replaced
1125
election of "all officials" by appointment from above in many
1126
areas of life -- for example, they abolished the election of
1127
officers in the Red Army and replaced workers' self-management
1128
in production with one-man management, both forms of democracy
1129
being substituted by appointed from above. In addition, by the
1130
end of April, 1918, Lenin *himself* was arguing "[o]bedience,
1131
and unquestioning obedience at that, during work to the
1132
one-man decisions of Soviet directors, of the dictators
1133
elected *or appointed* by Soviet institutions, vested with
1134
dictatorial powers." [_Six Theses on the Immediate Tasks of
1135
the Soviet Government_, p. 44 -- our emphasis] Moreover, the
1136
Soviet Constitution stated that "[e]very commissar [of the
1137
Council of People's Commissars -- i.e. the Soviet government]
1138
has a collegium (committee) of which he is the president, and
1139
the members of which are appointed by the Council of People's
1140
Commissars." Appointment was the rule at the very heights of
1141
the state. The "election of all officers" ("without exception"
1142
[Lenin, _The State and Revolution_, p. 302]) had ended by month
1143
six of the revolution even in Lenin's own writings -- and
1144
*before* the start of the Civil War.
1145
1146
Lenin also argued in mid-April 1918 that the "socialist character
1147
of Soviet, i.e. *proletarian*, democracy" lies, in part, in "the
1148
people themselves determin[ing] the order and time of elections."
1149
[_The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government_, pp. 36-7] Given
1150
that "the government [had] continually postponed the new general
1151
elections to the Petrograd Soviet, the term of which had ended
1152
in March 1918" because it "feared that the opposition parties
1153
would show gains" Lenin's comments seem hypocritical in the
1154
extreme. [Samuel Farber, _Before Stalinism_, p. 22]
1155
1156
Moreover, the Bolsheviks did not stay true to Lenin's claim
1157
in _The State and Revolution_ that "since the majority of the
1158
people *itself* suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force'
1159
is *no longer necessary*" as so "in place of a *special*
1160
repressive force, the whole population itself came on the
1161
scene." In this way the "state machine" would be "the armed
1162
masses of workers who become transformed into a universal
1163
people's militia." [Op. Cit., p. 301, p. 320 and p. 347] Instead
1164
they created a political police force (the Cheka) and a standing
1165
army (in which elections were a set aside by decree). These were
1166
special, professional, armed forces standing apart from the people
1167
and unaccountable to them. Indeed, they were used to repress
1168
strikes and working class unrest. So much for Mitchinson's
1169
claim that "there should be no special armed force standing
1170
apart from the people" -- it did not last three months (the
1171
Cheka was founded two months into the revolution, the Red
1172
Army was created in early 1918 and elections set aside by
1173
March of that year).
1174
1175
Lastly, the Bolsheviks banned newspapers from the start --
1176
including other socialist papers. In addition, they did not
1177
allow other political tendencies to organise freely. The
1178
repression started *before* the Civil War with the attack,
1179
by the Cheka, in April 1918 on the anarchist movements
1180
in Petrograd and Moscow. While repression obviously existed
1181
during the Civil War, it is significant that it, in fact,
1182
started *before* it began. During the Civil War, the
1183
Bolsheviks repressed all political parties, including the
1184
Mensheviks even though they "consistently pursued a policy
1185
of peaceable opposition to the Bolshevik regime, a policy
1186
conducted by strictly legitimate means" and "[i]ndividual
1187
Mensheviks who joined organisations aiming at the overthrow
1188
of the Soviet Government were expelled from the Menshevik
1189
Party." [George Leggett, _The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police_,
1190
pp. 318-9 and p. 332] In fact, repression *increased* after
1191
the end of the Civil War -- a strange fact if it was that
1192
war which necessitated repression in the first place.
1193
1194
Moreover, Mitchinson fails to mention Lenin's argument that, like
1195
the Paris Commune, the workers' state would be based on a fusion
1196
of executive and administrative functions in the hands of the
1197
workers' delegates. This is hardly surprising, as Lenin created
1198
an executive body (the Council of People's Commissars) immediately
1199
after the October Revolution. This division of executive and
1200
administrative powers was written into the Soviet Constitution.
1201
So much for _The State and Revolution_ -- its promises did not
1202
last a night.
1203
1204
Thus, his claims that the "semi-state" would not be like any
1205
other state are contradicted by the actual experience of Bolshevism
1206
in power. For anarchists, this comes as no surprise as they are well
1207
aware that the state machine does not (indeed, *cannot*) represent
1208
the interests of the working classes due to its centralised,
1209
hierarchical and elitist nature -- all it can do is represent
1210
the interests of the party in power, its own bureaucratic needs
1211
and privileges and slowly, but surely, remove itself from popular
1212
control. Hence the movement away from popular control -- it is
1213
the nature of centralised power to remove itself from control
1214
from below, control by the masses, particularly when all other
1215
focal points of working class self-management have been abolished
1216
as being no longer required as we have a "semi-state."
1217
1218
Mitchinson seems to want us to look purely at Bolshevik theory
1219
and not its practice. It is exactly what supporters of capitalism
1220
desire us to do -- in theory, capitalism is based on free
1221
agreement and free exchange between autonomous individuals but
1222
in practice it is a system of inequality which violates the
1223
autonomy of individuals and makes a mockery of free agreement.
1224
1225
In a way, _The State and Revolution_ laid out the foundations
1226
and sketched out the essential features of an alternative to
1227
Bolshevik power -- as noted, that system would be essentially
1228
libertarian. Only the pro-Leninist tradition has used Lenin's
1229
work, almost to quiet their conscience, because Lenin, once in
1230
power, ignored it totally. Such is the nature of the state --
1231
as Kropotkin and all other anarchists have argued, there can be
1232
no such thing as a "revolutionary government." Conflict will
1233
inevitably arise between the party which aims to control the
1234
revolution and the actions of the masses themselves. To resolve
1235
the conflict the state must eliminate the organs of workers
1236
self-activity which the revolution creates otherwise the
1237
party cannot impose its decisions -- and this is what the
1238
Bolshevik state did, aided of course by the horrors of the
1239
civil war.
1240
1241
To state the obvious, to quote theory and not relate it to the
1242
practice of those who claim to follow that theory is a joke. It
1243
is little more than sophistry. If you look at the actions of
1244
the Bolsheviks before and after the Russian Revolution you
1245
cannot help draw the conclusion that Lenin's _State and Revolution_
1246
has nothing to do with Bolshevik policy and presents a false
1247
image of what Trotskyists desire.
1248
1249
13. Is the Marxist "worker's state" really the rule of one class
1250
over another?
1251
1252
Mitchinson argues that the "task of this state would be to develop
1253
the economy to eradicate want. Less need, means less need to govern
1254
society, less need for a state. Class society and the state will begin
1255
to wither away as the government of people, the rule of one class over
1256
another, is replaced by the administration of things, the planned use
1257
of resources to meet society's needs."
1258
1259
As Malatesta makes clear, this is pure sophistry:
1260
1261
"Whoever has power over things has power over men; whoever governs
1262
production also governs the producers; who determines consumption
1263
is master over the consumer.
1264
1265
"This is the question; either things are administered on the basis
1266
of free agreement of the interested parties, and this is anarchy;
1267
or they are administered according to laws made by administrators
1268
and this is government, it is the State, and inevitably it turns
1269
out to be tyrannical.
1270
1271
"It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will of
1272
this or that man, but of the inevitability of the situation,
1273
and of the tendencies which man generally develops in given
1274
circumstances." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 145]
1275
1276
Moreover, it is debatable whether Trotskyists really desire the
1277
rule of one class over another in the sense of working class
1278
over capitalist class. To quote Trotsky:
1279
1280
"the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. In
1281
itself the necessity for state power arises from an insufficient
1282
cultural level of the masses and their heterogeneity. In the
1283
revolutionary vanguard, organised in a party, is crystallised
1284
the aspirations of the masses to obtain their freedom. Without
1285
the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support
1286
of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the
1287
conquest of power.
1288
1289
"In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship
1290
are the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership
1291
of the vanguard." [_Stalinism and Bolshevism_]
1292
1293
Thus, rather than the working class as a whole seizing power,
1294
it is the "vanguard" which takes power -- "a revolutionary
1295
party, even after seizing power . . . is still by no means
1296
the sovereign ruler of society." [Ibid.] That is, of course,
1297
true -- they are still organs of working class self-management
1298
(such as factory committees, workers councils, trade unions,
1299
soldier committees) through which working people can still
1300
exercise their sovereignty. Little wonder Trotsky abolished
1301
independent unions, decreed the end of soldier committees
1302
and urged one-man management and the militarisation of labour
1303
when in power. Such working class organs do conflict with
1304
the sovereign rule of the party and so have to be abolished.
1305
1306
After being in power four years, Trotsky was arguing that
1307
the "Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . .
1308
regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working
1309
class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every
1310
moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."
1311
[quoted by Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_,
1312
p. 78]
1313
1314
This position follows naturally from Trotsky's comments
1315
that the party "crystallises" the "aspirations" of the
1316
masses. If the masses reject the party then, obviously,
1317
their "cultural level" has fallen and so the party has
1318
the right, nay the duty, to impose its dictatorship
1319
over them. Similarly, the destruction of organs of
1320
working class self-management can be justified because
1321
the vanguard has taken power -- which is *exactly*
1322
what Trotsky argued.
1323
1324
With regards to the Red Army and its elected officers,
1325
he stated in March 1918 that "the principle of election
1326
is politically purposeless and technically inexpedient,
1327
and it has been, in practice, abolished by decree"
1328
because the Bolshevik Party held power or, as he put it,
1329
"political power is in the hands of the same working class
1330
from whose ranks the Army is recruited." Of course, power
1331
was actually held by the Bolshevik party, not the working
1332
class, but never fear:
1333
1334
"Once we have established the Soviet regime, that is
1335
a system under which the government is headed by persons
1336
who have been directly elected by the Soviets of
1337
Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies, there can
1338
be no antagonism between the government and the mass
1339
of the workers, just as there is no antagonism between
1340
the administration of the union and the general assembly
1341
of its members, and, therefore, there cannot be any
1342
grounds for fearing the *appointment* of members of the
1343
commanding staff by the organs of the Soviet Power."
1344
[_Work, Discipline, Order_]
1345
1346
He made the same comments with regard the factory committees:
1347
1348
"It would be a most crying error to confuse the question
1349
as to the supremacy of the proletariat with the question
1350
of boards of workers at the head of factories. The
1351
dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the
1352
abolition of private property in the means of production,
1353
in the supremacy of the collective will of the workers
1354
[a euphemism for the Party -- M.B.] and not at all in
1355
the form in which individual economic organisations are
1356
administered." [quoted by Maurice Brinton, Op. Cit.,
1357
p. 66]
1358
1359
This point is reiterated in his essay, "Bolshevism and
1360
Stalinism" (written in 1937) when he argued that:
1361
1362
"Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the
1363
party dictatorship should understand that only thanks to
1364
the party dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift
1365
themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the
1366
state form of the proletariat." [Trotsky, Op. Cit., p. 18]
1367
1368
And, obviously, without party dictatorship the soviets would
1369
return to the "mud." In other words, the soviets are only
1370
important to attain party rule and if the two come into conflict
1371
then Trotskyism provides the rule of the party with an ideological
1372
justification to eliminate soviet democracy. Lenin's and Trotsky's
1373
politics allowed them to argue that if you let the proletariat
1374
have a say then the dictatorship of the proletariat could be in
1375
danger.
1376
1377
Thus, for Trotsky, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is
1378
independent of allowing the proletariat to manage their own
1379
affairs directly. However, without the means of manage their
1380
own affairs directly, control their own lives, the proletariat
1381
are placed into the position of passive electors, who vote for
1382
parties who rule for and over them, in their own name. Moreover,
1383
they face the constant danger of the "vanguard" nullifying even
1384
these decisions as "temporary vacillations." A fine liberation
1385
indeed.
1386
1387
Also, as libertarian socialist Maurice Brinton argues, none of
1388
the Bolshevik leaders "saw the proletarian nature of the Russian
1389
regime as primarily and crucially dependent on the exercise of
1390
workers' power at the point of production (i.e. workers'
1391
management of production). It should have been obvious to
1392
them as Marxists that if the working class did not hold economic
1393
power, its 'political' power would at best be insecure and would
1394
in fact degenerate." [Op. Cit., p. 42]
1395
1396
With direct working class sovereignty eroded by the Bolsheviks
1397
in the name of indirect, i.e. party, sovereignty it is hardly
1398
surprising that the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes
1399
the dictatorship *over* the proletariat as Bakunin predicted.
1400
With the elimination of functional democracy and self-management,
1401
indirect democracy would not be able to survive for long in
1402
the face of centralised, top-down decision making by the
1403
ruling party.
1404
1405
So hopeless was Trotsky's understanding of socialism and the
1406
nature of a working class social revolution that he even
1407
considered the Stalinist dictatorship to be an expression
1408
of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." He argued that
1409
the "bureaucracy has expropriated the proletariat politically
1410
in order to guard its social conquests with *its own*
1411
methods. The anatomy of society is determined by its economic
1412
relations. So long as the forms of property that have been
1413
created by the October Revolution are not overthrown, the
1414
proletariat remains the ruling class." [_The Class Nature of
1415
the Soviet State_]
1416
1417
Just to stress the point, according to Trotsky, under
1418
Stalinism *the proletariat was the ruling class* and
1419
that Stalin's dictatorship eliminated what remained (and
1420
it was not much) of working class political influence in
1421
order "to guard its social conquests"! What social conquests
1422
could remain if the proletariat was under the heel of
1423
a totalitarian dictatorship? Just one, state ownership
1424
of property -- precisely the means by which the (state)
1425
bureaucracy enforced its control over production and so
1426
the source of its economic power (and privileges). To
1427
state the obvious, if the working class does not *control*
1428
the property it is claimed to own then someone else does.
1429
The economic relationship thus generated is a hierarchical
1430
one, in which the working class is an oppressed class. Thus
1431
Trotsky identified the source of the bureaucracy's economic
1432
power with "socialism" -- no wonder his analysis of Stalinism
1433
(and vision of socialism) proved so disastrous.
1434
1435
Trotsky argues that the "liberal-anarchist thought closes its
1436
eyes to the fact that the Bolshevik revolution, with all its
1437
repressions, meant an upheaval of social relations in the
1438
interests of the masses, whereas Stalin's Thermidorian upheaval
1439
accompanies the reconstruction of Soviet society in the interest
1440
of a privileged minority." [_Stalinism and Bolshevism_] However,
1441
social relations are just that, *social* and so between individuals
1442
and classes -- ownership of property cannot tell the whole story.
1443
What social relations did Bolshevism bring about?
1444
1445
As far as the wage labour social relationship goes (and do not
1446
forget that is the defining feature of capitalism), the Bolsheviks
1447
opposed workers' self-management in favour of, first, "control"
1448
over the capitalists and then one-man management. No change in
1449
social relationships there. Property relations did change in the sense
1450
that the state became the owner of capital rather than individual
1451
capitalists, but the *social* relationship workers experienced
1452
during the working day and within society was identical. The
1453
state bureaucrat replaced the capitalist.
1454
1455
As for politics, the Bolshevik revolution replaced government with
1456
government. Initially, it was an elected government and so it had the
1457
typical social relationships of representative government. Later, it
1458
became a one party dictatorship -- a situation that did not change under
1459
Stalin. Thus the social relationships there, again, did not change.
1460
The Bolshevik Party became the head of the government. That is all.
1461
This event also saw the reconstruction of Soviet Society in the
1462
interest of a privileged minority -- it is well known that the
1463
Communists gave themselves the best rations, best premises and so on.
1464
1465
Thus the Bolshevik revolution did *not* change the social relations
1466
people faced and so Trotsky's comments are wishful thinking. The
1467
"interests of the masses" could not, and were not, defended by
1468
the Bolshevik revolution as it did not change the relations
1469
of authority in a society -- the social relationships people
1470
experienced remain unchanged. Perhaps that is why Lenin argued
1471
that the proletarian nature of the Russian regime was ensured
1472
by the nature of the ruling party? There could be no other basis
1473
for saying the Bolshevik state was a workers' state. After all,
1474
nationalised property without workers' self-management *does not
1475
change social relationships* it just changes who is telling the
1476
workers what to do.
1477
1478
The important point to note is that Trotsky argued that the
1479
proletariat could be a ruling class when it had *no* political
1480
influence, never mind democracy, when subject to a one-party
1481
state and bureaucratic dictatorship and when the social relations
1482
of the society were obviously capitalistic. No wonder he found
1483
it impossible to recognise that dictatorship by the party did
1484
not equal dictatorship by the proletariat.
1485
1486
Therefore, the claim that Trotskyists see the "dictatorship of the
1487
proletariat" as "the rule of one class over another" is, as can be
1488
seen, a joke. Rather they see it as the rule of the party over the
1489
rest of society, *including* the working class. Even when that party
1490
had become a bureaucratic nightmare, murdering millions and sending
1491
hundreds of thousands to forced labour camps, Trotsky still argued
1492
that the "working class" was still the "ruling class." Not only
1493
that, his political perspective allowed him to justify the
1494
suppression of workers' democracy in the name of the "rule"
1495
of the workers. For this reason, anarchists feel that the real
1496
utopians are the Leninists who believe that party rule equals
1497
class rule and that centralised, hierarchical power in the hands
1498
of the few will not become a new form of class rule. History, we
1499
think, supports our politics on this issue (as in so many others).
1500
1501
Mitchinson argues that "Anarchism's utopian calls to abolish
1502
the state overnight demonstrates neither the understanding of
1503
what the state is, nor the programme of action necessary to
1504
achieve the goal it sets itself." However, as made clear,
1505
it is Marxism which is utopian, believing that rule by a
1506
party equals rule by a class and that a state machine can be
1507
utilised by the majority of the population. As Kropotkin argued,
1508
Anarchists "maintain that the State organisation, having been
1509
the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and
1510
organising their power over the masses, cannot be the force
1511
which will serve to destroy these privileges." [_Kropotkin's
1512
Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 170]
1513
1514
Luigi Fabbri sums up the difference well:
1515
1516
"The mistake of authoritarian communists in this connection
1517
is the belief that fighting and organising are impossible
1518
without submission to a government; and thus they regard
1519
anarchists . . . as the foes of all organisation and all
1520
co-ordinated struggle. We, on the other hand, maintain
1521
that not only are revolutionary struggle and revolutionary
1522
organisation possible outside and in spite of government
1523
interference but that, indeed, that is the only effective
1524
way to struggle and organise, for it has the active
1525
participation of all members of the collective unit,
1526
instead of their passively entrusting themselves to the
1527
authority of the supreme leaders." ["Anarchy and 'Scientific'
1528
Communism", in _The Poverty of Statism_, pp. 13-49,
1529
Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 27]
1530
1531
Mitchinson moves on to the usual Marxist slander that as "a modern
1532
philosophy anarchism developed in the 19th century alongside the
1533
explosive growth of capitalism and its state machine. It represented
1534
a rebellion by a section of the petty bourgeoisie at the loss
1535
of their position in society, driven to the wall by the growth
1536
of monopoly." We have refuted this assertion in another appendix
1537
(Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet
1538
"Socialism from Below") and so will not do so here.
1539
1540
14. Why do anarchists reject the Marxist notion of "conquest of power"?
1541
1542
Mitchinson now decides to quote some anarchists to back up his spurious
1543
argument:
1544
1545
"Their case was argued by Mikhail Bakunin and his supporters in the First
1546
International. At an anarchist conference in 1872 they argued 'The
1547
aspirations of the proletariat can have no other aim than the creation
1548
of an absolutely free economic organisation and federation based on work
1549
and equality and wholly independent of any political government, and such
1550
an organisation can only come into being through the spontaneous action
1551
of the proletariat itself...no political organisation can be anything
1552
but the organisation of rule in the interests of a class and to the
1553
detriment of the masses...the proletariat, should it seize power,
1554
would become a ruling, and exploiting, class...'"
1555
1556
To understand this passage it is necessary to place it in historical
1557
context. In 1872, the proletariat was a *minority* class within all
1558
nations *bar* the UK. In almost all nations, the majority of the working
1559
class were either artisans or peasants (hence the reference to "the
1560
masses"). To urge that the proletariat seize power meant to advocate
1561
the class rule of a *minority* of the working masses. Minority rule
1562
could be nothing else but the dictatorship of a minority over the
1563
majority (a dictatorship in the usual sense of the word), and
1564
dictatorships always become exploitative of the general population.
1565
1566
Thus Mitchinson's "analysis" is ahistoric and, fundamentally,
1567
unscientific and a mockery of materialism.
1568
1569
Moreover, anarchists like Bakunin also made clear that the Marxist
1570
notion of "proletarian dictatorship" did not even mean that the
1571
proletariat *as a whole* would exercise power. In his words:
1572
1573
"What does it mean, 'the proletariat raised to a governing class?'
1574
Will the entire proletariat head the government? The Germans
1575
number about 40 million. Will all 40 million be members of the
1576
government? The entire nation will rule, but no one would be
1577
ruled. Then there will be no government, there will be no
1578
state; but if there is a state, there will also be those who
1579
are ruled, there will be slaves.
1580
1581
"In the Marxists' theory this dilemma is resolved in a simple
1582
fashion. By popular government they mean government of the
1583
people by a small number of representatives elected by the
1584
people. So-called popular representatives and rulers of
1585
the state elected by the entire nation on the basis of
1586
universal suffrage -- the last word of the Marxists, as
1587
well as the democratic school -- is a lie behind which
1588
the despotism of a ruling minority is concealed, a lie
1589
all the more dangerous in that it represents itself as the
1590
expression of a sham popular will.
1591
1592
"So . . . it always comes down to the same dismal result:
1593
government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged
1594
minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, will consist of
1595
workers. Yes, perhaps, of *former* workers, who, as soon as
1596
they become rulers or representatives of the people will
1597
cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole
1598
workers' world from the heights of the state. They will no
1599
longer represent the people but themselves and their own
1600
pretensions to govern the people." [_Statism and Anarchy_,
1601
p. 178]
1602
1603
Thus anarchists reject the notion of the dictatorship of the
1604
proletariat for two reasons. Firstly, because it excluded the
1605
bulk of the working masses when it was first used by Marx and
1606
Engels. Secondly, because in practice it would mean the
1607
dictatorship of the party *over* the proletariat. Needless
1608
to say, Mitchinson does not mention these points.
1609
1610
Mitchinson argues that "[a]lthough this sounds radical enough it
1611
nonetheless amounts to a recipe for inaction and disaster." And
1612
quotes Trotsky to explain why:
1613
1614
"To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the
1615
power with those who wield it, the exploiters. The essence of
1616
every revolution consisted and consists in putting a new class
1617
in power, thus enabling it to realise its own programme in life.
1618
It is impossible to wage war and to reject victory. It is impossible
1619
to lead the masses towards insurrection without preparing for the
1620
conquest of power."
1621
1622
For anarchists the question immediately is, "power to who"? As
1623
is clear from the writings of Lenin and Trotsky they see the
1624
"conquest of power" *not* in terms of "putting a new class in
1625
power" but, in fact, the *representatives* of that class, the
1626
vanguard party, into power. Anarchists, in contrast, argue
1627
that organs of working class self-management are the means
1628
of creating and defending a *social* revolution as it is
1629
the only means that the mass of people can actually run
1630
their own lives and any power over and above these organs
1631
means dictatorship *over* the working class, a new form of
1632
state and class power.
1633
1634
As Rudolf Rocker argues:
1635
1636
"Let no one object that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'
1637
cannot be compared to run of the mill dictatorship because
1638
it is the dictatorship of a class. Dictatorship of a class
1639
cannot exist as such, for it ends up, in the last analysis,
1640
as being the dictatorship of a given party which arrogates
1641
to itself the right to speak for that class. Thus, the liberal
1642
bourgeoisie, in their fight against despotism, used to speak
1643
in the name of the 'people'. . .
1644
1645
"We already know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater.
1646
And we know, too, that the owning classes will never yield up
1647
their privileges spontaneously. On the day of victorious
1648
revolution the workers will have to impose their will on the
1649
present owners of the soil, of the subsoil and of the means
1650
of production, which cannot be done -- let us be clear on
1651
this -- without the workers taking the capital of society
1652
into their own hands, and, above all, without their having
1653
demolished the authoritarian structure which is, and will
1654
continue to be, the fortress keeping the masses of the people
1655
under dominion. Such an action is, without doubt, an act of
1656
liberation; a proclamation of social justice; the very essence
1657
of social revolution, which has nothing in common with the
1658
utterly bourgeois principle of dictatorship.
1659
1660
"The fact that a large number of socialist parties have rallied
1661
to the idea of councils, which is the proper mark of libertarian
1662
socialist and revolutionary syndicalists, is a confession,
1663
recognition that the tack they have taken up until now has been the
1664
product of a falsification, a distortion, and that with the councils
1665
the labour movement must create for itself a single organ capable
1666
of carrying into effect the unmitigated socialism that the conscious
1667
proletariat longs for. On the other hand, it ought not to be
1668
forgotten that this abrupt conversion runs the risk of introducing
1669
many alien features into the councils concept, features, that is,
1670
with no relation to the original tasks of socialism, and which
1671
have to be eliminated because they pose a threat to the further
1672
development of the councils. These alien elements are able only
1673
to conceive things from the dictatorial viewpoint. It must be our
1674
task to face up to this risk and warn our class comrades against
1675
experiments which cannot bring the dawn of social emancipation
1676
any nearer -- which indeed, to the contrary, positively postpone it.
1677
1678
"Consequently, our advice is as follows: Everything for the councils
1679
or soviets! No power above them! A slogan which at the same time
1680
will be that of the social revolutionary." [_Anarchism and Sovietism_]
1681
1682
Or, as the Bakunin influenced Jura Federation of the First International
1683
put it in 1874, "the dictatorship that we want is one which the insurgent
1684
masses exercise directly, without intermediary of any committee or
1685
government." [quoted by Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_,
1686
p. 631] In other words, a situation in which the working masses
1687
defend their freedom, their control over their own lives, from
1688
those who seek to replace it with minority rule.
1689
1690
15. What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?
1691
1692
Mitchinson argues that:
1693
1694
"Anarchists see in the degeneration of the Soviet Union into a
1695
totalitarian dictatorship proof that Bakunin was right. In reality,
1696
only Leon Trotsky and Marxism have been able to explain the causes
1697
of that degeneration, finding its roots not in men's heads or
1698
personalities, but in the real life conditions of civil war,
1699
armies of foreign intervention, and the defeat of revolution
1700
in Europe."
1701
1702
Needless to say, anarchism explains the causes of the degeneration in
1703
a far more rich way than Mitchinson claims. The underlying assumption
1704
of his "critique" of anarchism is that the *politics* of the Bolsheviks
1705
had no influence on the outcome of the revolution -- it was a product
1706
purely of objective forces. He also subscribes to the contradictory
1707
idea that Bolshevik politics were essential for the success of that
1708
revolution. The facts of the matter is that people are faced with
1709
choices, choices that arise from the objective conditions that they
1710
face. What decisions they make will be influenced by the ideas they
1711
hold -- they will *not* occur automatically, as if people were on
1712
auto-pilot -- and their ideas are shaped by the social relationships
1713
they experience. Thus, someone placed into a position of power over
1714
others will act in certain ways, have a certain world view, which
1715
would be alien to someone subject to egalitarian social relations.
1716
1717
So, obviously the "ideas in people's heads" matter, particularly
1718
during a revolution. Someone in favour of centralisation, centralised
1719
power and who equates party rule with class rule (like Lenin and
1720
Trotsky), will act in ways (and create structures) totally different
1721
from someone who believes in decentralisation and federalism. In
1722
other words, *political ideas do matter* in society. Nor do
1723
anarchists leave our analysis at this obvious fact -- as noted,
1724
we also argue that the types of organisation people create and
1725
work in shapes the way they think and act. This is because specific
1726
kinds of organisation have specific authority relations and so
1727
generate specific social relationships. These obviously affect
1728
those subject to them -- a centralised, hierarchical system will
1729
create authoritarian social relationships which shape those within
1730
it in totally different ways than a decentralised, egalitarian system.
1731
That Mitchinson denies this obvious fact suggests he knows nothing
1732
of materialist philosophy.
1733
1734
Moreover, anarchists are aware of the problems facing the revolution.
1735
After all, anarchists were involved in that revolution and wrote
1736
some of the best works on that revolution (for example, Voline's
1737
_The Unknown Revolution_, Arshinov's _The History of the Makhnovist
1738
Movement_ and Maximov's _The Guillotine at Work_). However, they
1739
point to the obvious fact that the politics of the Bolsheviks
1740
played a key role in how the revolution developed. While the
1741
terrible objective conditions may have shaped certain aspects of
1742
the actions of the Bolsheviks it cannot be denied that the impulse
1743
for them were rooted in Bolshevik theory. After all, anarchist
1744
theory could not justify the suppression of the functional
1745
democracy associated with the factory committees or the soldiers
1746
election of officers in the Red Army. Bolshevik theory could, and
1747
did.
1748
1749
Indeed, Trotsky was still claiming in 1937 that the "Bolshevik
1750
party achieved in the civil war the correct combination of
1751
military art and Marxist politics." [_Stalinism and Bolshevism_]
1752
In other words, the Bolshevik policies implemented during
1753
the Civil War were the correct, Marxist, ones. Also, although Lenin
1754
described the NEP (New Economic Policy) of 1921 as a 'defeat', at
1755
no stage did he describe the suppression of soviet democracy and
1756
workers' control in such language. In other words, Bolshevik politics
1757
did play a role, a key role, in the degeneration of the Russian
1758
Revolution and to deny it is to deny reality. In the words of
1759
Maurice Brinton:
1760
1761
"[I]n relation to industrial policy there is a clear-cut and
1762
incontrovertible link between what happened under Lenin
1763
and Trotsky and the later practice of Stalinism. We know
1764
that many on the revolutionary left will find this statement
1765
hard to swallow. We are convinced however that any honest
1766
reading of the facts cannot but lead to this conclusion. The
1767
more one unearths about this period [1917-21], the more
1768
difficult it becomes to define -- or even see -- the 'gulf'
1769
allegedly separating what happened in Lenin's time from what
1770
happened later. Real knowledge of the facts also makes it
1771
impossible to accept . . . that the whole course of events
1772
was 'historically inevitable' and 'objectively determined.'
1773
Bolshevik ideology and practice were *themselves* important
1774
and sometimes decisive factors in the equation, at every
1775
critical stage of this critical period." [Op. Cit., p. 84]
1776
1777
We should also point out that far from "Leon Trotsky and Marxism"
1778
explaining the degeneration of the Russian revolution, Trotsky
1779
could not understand that a "totalitarian dictatorship" could
1780
be an expression of a new minority class and presented a decidedly
1781
false analysis of the Soviet Union as a "degenerated workers'
1782
state." That analysis led numerous Trotskyists to support these
1783
dictatorships and oppose workers' revolts against them. In
1784
addition, Trotsky's own reservations were only really voiced
1785
after he had lost power. Moreover, he never acknowledged how
1786
his own policies (such as the elimination of soldiers
1787
democracy, the militarisation of labour, etc.) played a key
1788
role in the rise of the bureaucracy and Stalin.
1789
1790
Ultimately, every explanation of the degeneration of the Russian
1791
revolution by Trotskyists ends up as an appeal to "exception
1792
circumstances" -- they blame the rise of Stalinism on the
1793
Civil War, to the "exceptional circumstances" created by
1794
that war. This can be faulted for two reasons.
1795
1796
Firstly, as Trotsky himself argued (with respect to the Spanish
1797
Anarchists) "did not the leaders of German social democracy invoke,
1798
in their time, the same excuse? Naturally, civil war is not a
1799
peaceful and ordinary but an 'exceptional circumstance.' . . .
1800
we do severely blame the anarchist theory, which seemed wholly
1801
suitable for times of peace, but had to be dropped rapidly
1802
as soon as the 'exceptional circumstance' of the . . .
1803
revolution had begun." [_Stalinism and Bolshevism_] Needless
1804
to say, he did not apply his critique to his own politics,
1805
which were also a form of the "exceptional circumstances"
1806
excuse. Given how quickly Bolshevik "principles" (as expressed
1807
in _The State and Revolution_) were dropped, we can only
1808
assume that Bolshevik ideas are also suitable purely for
1809
"times of peace" as well.
1810
1811
Secondly, this "explanation" basically argues that, *if* the
1812
bourgeois did not defend their power in 1917, then Leninism
1813
would have worked out fine. As Mitchinson himself noted above,
1814
belief that the bourgeois will just go away without a fight is
1815
"an infantile flight of fancy." As Lenin argued, "revolution
1816
. . ., in its development, would give rise to exceptionally
1817
complicated circumstances" and "[r]evolution is the sharpest,
1818
most furious, desperate class war and civil war. Not a single
1819
great revolution in history has escaped civil war. No one who
1820
does not live in a shell could imagine that civil war is
1821
conceivable without exceptionally complicated circumstances."
1822
[_Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?_, p. 80 and p. 81]
1823
1824
If the Civil War did solely produce the degeneration of the
1825
Russian Revolution then all we can hope for is that in the
1826
next social revolution, the civil war Lenin argued was inevitable
1827
is not as destructive as the Russian one. Hope is not much of a
1828
basis to build a "scientific" socialism -- but then again, neither
1829
is "fate" much of a basis to explain the degeneration of the
1830
Russian Revolution but that is what Trotskyists do argue.
1831
1832
We discuss the Russian Revolution in more detail in the
1833
appendix on "What happened during the Russian Revolution?"
1834
of the FAQ and will not do so here. However, we can point out
1835
the experience of the anarchist Makhnovist movement in the
1836
Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. Facing exactly the same
1837
objective conditions they encouraged soviet democracy, held
1838
regular congresses of workers and peasants (the Bolsheviks
1839
tried to ban two of them), defended freedom of the press and
1840
of association and so on. If objective conditions determined
1841
Bolshevik policies, why did they not also determine the policies
1842
of the Makhnovists? This practical example indicates that the
1843
usual Trotskyist explanation of the degeneration of the Revolution
1844
is false.
1845
1846
Perhaps it is because of this, that it showed an alternative to
1847
Bolshevik politics existed and worked, that Trotskyists slander
1848
it? Trotsky himself asserted that the Makhnovists were simply
1849
"kulaks" on horseback and that Makhno's "followers . . . [expressed]
1850
a militant anti-Semitism." [Lenin and Trotsky, _Kronstadt_, p. 80]
1851
We discuss the Makhnovist movement in the appendix on "Why does
1852
the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?"
1853
of the FAQ and there we refute claims that the Makhnovist movement
1854
was a kulak (rich peasant) one. However, the charge of "militant
1855
anti-Semitism" is a serious one and so we will expose its falsehood
1856
here and well as in section 9 of the specified appendix.
1857
1858
The best source to refute claims of anti-Semitism is to quote
1859
the work of the Jewish anarchist Voline. He summarises the
1860
extensive evidence against such claims:
1861
1862
"We could cover dozens of pages with extensive and irrefutable
1863
proofs of the falseness of these assertions. We could mention
1864
articles and proclamations by Makhno and the Council of
1865
Revolutionary Insurgents denouncing anti-Semitism. We could
1866
tell of spontaneous acts by Makhno himself and other insurgents
1867
against the slightest manifestation of the anti-Semitic spirit
1868
on the part of a few isolated and misguided unfortunates in
1869
the army and the population. . . One of the reasons for the
1870
execution of Grigoriev by the Makhnovists was his anti-Semitism
1871
and the immense pogrom he organised at Elizabethgrad. . .
1872
We could cite a whole series of similar facts, but we do not
1873
find it necessary . . . and will content ourselves with
1874
mentioning briefly the following essential facts:
1875
1876
"1. A fairly important part in the Makhnovist movement was
1877
played by revolutionists of Jewish origin.
1878
1879
"2. Several members of the Education and Propaganda Commission
1880
were Jewish.
1881
1882
"3. Besides many Jewish combatants in various units of the
1883
army, there was a battery composed entirely of Jewish
1884
artillery men and a Jewish infantry unit.
1885
1886
"4. Jewish colonies in the Ukraine furnished many volunteers
1887
to the Insurrectionary Army.
1888
1889
"5. In general the Jewish population . . . took an active
1890
part in all the activities of the movement. The Jewish
1891
agricultural colonies . . . participated in the regional
1892
assemblies of workers, peasants and partisans; they sent
1893
their delegates to the regional Revolutionary Military
1894
Council. . ." [_The Unknown Revolution_, pp. 967-8]
1895
1896
Voline also quotes the eminent Jewish writer and historian
1897
M. Tcherikover about the question of the Makhnovists and
1898
anti-Semitism. The Jewish historian states "with certainty
1899
that, on the whole, the behaviour of Makhno's army
1900
cannot be compared with that of the other armies which
1901
were operating in Russian during the events 1917-21 . . .
1902
It is undeniable that, of all these armies, including
1903
the Red Army, the Makhnovists behaved best with regard
1904
the civil population in general and the Jewish population
1905
in particular . . . The proportion of *justified* complaints
1906
against the Makhnovist army, in comparison with the others,
1907
is negligible. . . Do not speak of pogroms alleged to have
1908
been organised by Makhno himself. That is a slander or an
1909
error. Nothing of the sort occurred. As for the Makhnovist
1910
Army . . . *[n]ot once* have I been able to prove the
1911
existence of a Makhnovist unit at the place a pogrom
1912
against the Jews took place. Consequently, the pogroms
1913
in question could not have been the work of the Makhnovists."
1914
[quoted by Voline, Op. Cit., p. 699]
1915
1916
Given that the Red Army agreed to two pacts with the Makhnovists,
1917
we can only surmise, if Trotsky thought he was telling the
1918
truth, that Trotsky was a hypocrite. However, Trotsky was
1919
either consciously lying or in error -- unfortunately the
1920
Trotskyist publishers of his words did not bother to note
1921
that his assertion was false. We are sorry for this slight
1922
digression, but many Trotskyists take Trotsky's words at
1923
face value and repeat his slander -- unless we indicate
1924
their false nature they may not take our argument seriously.
1925
1926
Mitchinson continues by stating:
1927
1928
"The position of anarchism only serves to endorse the bourgeois
1929
slander that Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism."
1930
1931
This appeal against slander is ironic from someone who writes an
1932
article full of it. But, of course, it is *bourgeois* slander that
1933
he objects too -- Trotskyist slander (and falsification) is fine.
1934
1935
The question of whether it is a "bourgeois slander" to argue (with
1936
supporting evidence) that "Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism" is
1937
an important one. Trotskyists often point out that anarchist and
1938
libertarian Marxist critiques of Bolshevism sound similar to
1939
bourgeois ones and that anarchist accounts of Bolshevik crimes
1940
against the revolution and working class give ammunition to the
1941
defenders of the status quo. However, this seems more like an
1942
attempt to stop critical analysis of the Russian Revolution than
1943
a serious political position. Yes, the bourgeois do argue that
1944
Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism -- however they do so to
1945
discredit all forms of socialism and radical social change.
1946
Anarchists, on the other hand, analyse the revolution, see
1947
how the Bolsheviks acted and draw conclusions from the facts
1948
in order to push forward revolutionary thought, tactics and
1949
ideas. Just because the conclusions are similar does not mean
1950
that they are invalid -- to label criticism of Bolshevism as
1951
"bourgeois slander" is nothing less than attempt to put people
1952
off investigating the Russian Revolution.
1953
1954
There is are course essential differences between the "bourgeois
1955
slanders" against the Bolsheviks and the anarchist critique. The
1956
bourgeois slander is based on an opposition to the revolution
1957
*as such* while the anarchist critique affirms it. The bourgeois
1958
slanders are not the result of the experiences of the working
1959
masses and revolutionaries subject to the Bolshevik regime
1960
as the anarchist is. Similarly, the bourgeois slanders ignore
1961
the nature of capitalist society while the anarchist critique
1962
points out that the degeneration of the Bolshevik state and
1963
party were a result of it not breaking with bourgeois ideas
1964
and organisational structures. Ultimately, it is *not* a case
1965
of "bourgeois slanders" but rather an honest evaluation of the
1966
events of the Russian Revolution from a working class perspective.
1967
1968
To use an analogy, it is common place for the bourgeois press
1969
and ideologists to attack trade unions as being bureaucratic
1970
and unresponsive to the needs of their members. It is also
1971
common place for members of those same trade unions to think
1972
exactly the same. Indeed, it is a common refrain of Trotskyists
1973
that the trade unions *are* bureaucratic and need to be
1974
reformed in a more democratic fashion (indeed, Mitchinson
1975
calls for the unions to be "transformed" in his essay). Needless
1976
to say, the bourgeois comments are "correct" in the sense that
1977
the trade unions do have a bureaucracy -- their reasons for
1978
stating that truth serve their interests and their solutions
1979
aid those interests and not those of the members of the unions.
1980
Could a Trotskyist say that it was a "bourgeois slander" if
1981
the capitalist press point to the bureaucratic nature of the
1982
unions when their own papers do the same?
1983
1984
While it may be in the interests of the ruling elite and its
1985
apologists to scream about "bourgeois slanders", it hinders
1986
the process of working class self-emancipation to do so. As
1987
intended, in all likelihood.
1988
1989
16. Did anarchists reject "the need for organisation in the shape of
1990
trade unions"?
1991
1992
Mitchinson now decides to "expose" anarchism:
1993
1994
"In its early days, this modern anarchism found a certain support amongst
1995
the workers. However, through the course of struggle workers learned the
1996
need for organisation in the shape of the trade unions, and also for
1997
political organisation which led to the building of the mass workers
1998
parties."
1999
2000
To see the total nonsense of this claim we need only to turn to Marx.
2001
In his words, Bakunin thought that the "working class . . . must only
2002
organise themselves by trades-unions." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, _Anarchism
2003
and Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 48] Bakunin himself argued "the natural
2004
organisation of the masses . . . is organisation based on the various
2005
ways that their various types of work define their day-to-day life; it
2006
is organisation by trade association." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 139]
2007
Kropotkin argued that the "union [*syndicat*] is absolutely necessary.
2008
It is the only form of workers' grouping which permits the direct
2009
struggle to be maintained against capital without falling into
2010
parliamentarism." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, _Kropotkin and the
2011
Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism_, p. 269]
2012
2013
So much for anarchism being against trade unions (as Mitchinson
2014
implies). As for mass workers parties, well, history proved Bakunin
2015
right -- such parties became corrupted, bureaucratic and reformist.
2016
For Mitchinson the last 130 years have not existed.
2017
2018
He goes on to argue that "Bakunin and co. denounced participation in
2019
parliament, or the fight for reforms as a betrayal of the revolution,
2020
they 'rejected all political action not having as its immediate and
2021
direct objective the triumph of the workers over capitalism, and as a
2022
consequence, the abolition of the state.'"
2023
2024
We must first note that the Bakunin quote presented does not support
2025
Mitchinson's assertions -- unless you think that reforms can only be
2026
won via participation in parliament (something anarchists reject). The
2027
reason *why* Bakunin rejected "all political action" (i.e. bourgeois
2028
politics -- electioneering in other words) is not explained. We will
2029
now do so.
2030
2031
Bakunin did denounce participation in parliament. History proved
2032
him right. Participation in parliament ensured the corruption of the
2033
Social Democratic Parties, the Greens and a host of other radical
2034
and socialist organisations. Mitchinson seems to have forgotten the
2035
fights against reformism that continually occurred in the Social
2036
Democratic Parties at end of the nineteenth and start of the
2037
twentieth centuries, a fight which ended with the defeat of the
2038
revolutionary wing and the decision to support the nation state in
2039
the first world war. The actual experience of using parliament
2040
confirmed Bakunin's prediction that when "the workers . . .
2041
send common workers . . . to Legislative Assemblies . . . The
2042
worker-deputies, transplanted into a bourgeois environment, into
2043
an atmosphere of purely bourgeois ideas, will in fact cease to be
2044
workers and, becoming Statesmen, they will become bourgeois . . .
2045
For men do not make their situations; on the contrary, men are
2046
made by them." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 108]
2047
2048
What is not true, however, is that claim that Bakunin thought
2049
that "the fight for reforms [w]as a betrayal of the revolution."
2050
Bakunin was a firm believer in the importance of struggles for
2051
reforms, but struggles of a specific kind -- namely struggles
2052
to win reforms which are based on the *direct action* by workers
2053
themselves:
2054
2055
"What policy should the International [Workers' Association]
2056
follow during th[e] somewhat extended time period that
2057
separates us from this terrible social revolution . . .
2058
the International will give labour unrest in all countries
2059
an *essentially economic* character, with the aim of
2060
reducing working hours and increasing salary, by means of
2061
the *association of the working masses* . . . It will [also]
2062
propagandise its principles . . . [Op. Cit., p. 109]
2063
2064
"And indeed, as soon as a worker believes that the economic
2065
state of affairs can be radically transformed in the near
2066
future, he begins to fight, in association with his comrades,
2067
for the reduction of his working hours and for an increase
2068
in his salary. . . through practice and action . . . the
2069
progressive expansion and development of the economic
2070
struggle will bring him more and more to recognise his true
2071
enemies: the privileged classes, including the clergy, the
2072
bourgeois, and the nobility; and the State, which exists
2073
only to safeguard all the privileges of those classes."
2074
[Op. Cit., p. 103]
2075
2076
This argument for reforms by direct action and workers'
2077
associations was a basic point of agreement in those
2078
sections of the First International which supported
2079
Bakunin's ideas. In the words of an anarchist member
2080
of the Jura Federation writing in 1875:
2081
2082
"Instead of begging the State for a law compelling employers
2083
to make them work only so many hours, the trade associations
2084
*directly impose* this reform on the employers; in this
2085
way, instead of a legal text which remains a dead letter,
2086
a real economic change is effected *by the direct initiative
2087
of the workers* . . . if the workers devoted all their activity
2088
and energy to the organisation of their trades into societies
2089
of resistance, trade federations, local and regional, if, by
2090
meetings, lectures, study circles, papers and pamphlets, they
2091
kept up a permanent socialist and revolutionary agitation; if
2092
by linking practice to theory, they *realised directly*,
2093
without any bourgeois and governmental intervention, all
2094
immediately possible reforms, reforms advantageous not to a
2095
few workers but to the labouring mass -- certainly then the
2096
cause of labour would be better served than . . . legal
2097
agitation." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, _Kropotkin and the
2098
Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism_, p. 226]
2099
2100
So much for Bakunin or the libertarian wing of the First
2101
International being against reforms or the struggle for
2102
reforms. Anarchists have not changed their minds on this
2103
issue.
2104
2105
17. Why do anarchists reject political activity?
2106
2107
After spreading falsehoods against Bakunin, Mitchinson states
2108
that:
2109
2110
"Marxism fights for the conquest of political power by the working
2111
class and the building of a socialist society, under which the state
2112
will wither away.
2113
2114
"Until then should workers refrain from political activity? Should they
2115
reject all reforms that might improve their existence? Nothing would
2116
please Blair or the bosses more."
2117
2118
It is ironic that Mitchinson mentions Blair. He is, after all, the leader
2119
of the Labour Party -- as mass workers party formed from the trade unions
2120
to use political action to gain reforms within capitalism. The current
2121
state of Labour indicates well the comment that "in proportion as the
2122
socialists become a power in the present bourgeois society and State,
2123
their socialism must die out." [Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary
2124
Pamphlets_, p. 189] It is as if the history of Social Democracy (or
2125
even the German Greens) does not exist for Mitchinson -- he points
2126
to Blair to refute anarchist analysis that Parliamentary politics
2127
corrupts the parties that use it! How strange, to ignore the results
2128
of socialists actually using "political activity" (and we must stress
2129
that anarchists traditionally use the term "political action" to refer
2130
to electioneering, i.e. bourgeois politics, only). Obviously reality
2131
is something which can be ignored when creating a political theory.
2132
2133
Needless to say, as noted above, anarchists do not "reject all reforms."
2134
We have quoted Bakunin, now we quote Kropotkin -- "the Anarchists have
2135
always advised taking an active part in those workers' organisations
2136
which carry on the *direct* struggle of Labour against Capital and
2137
its protector, the State." He continued by arguing that such struggle,
2138
"better than any other indirect means, permits the worker to obtain
2139
some temporary improvements in the present conditions of work,
2140
while it opens his eyes to the evil done by Capitalism and the
2141
State that supports it, and wakes up his thoughts concerning the
2142
possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange
2143
without the intervention of the capitalist and the State."
2144
[_Evolution and Environment_, pp. 82-3]
2145
2146
Thus we do not think that political action (electioneering) equates
2147
to reforms nor even is the best means of winning reforms in the first
2148
place. Anarchists argue that by direct action we can win reforms.
2149
2150
Mitchinson continues his diatribe:
2151
2152
"Of course not, we must advocate the struggle for every gain no
2153
matter how minor, and use any and every field open to us. Only
2154
the dilettante can reject better wages or a health care system.
2155
Precisely through these struggles, and the struggles to transform
2156
the workers organisations the unions and the parties, we learn
2157
and become more powerful and bring closer the day when it will
2158
be possible to transform society for good."
2159
2160
As noted, anarchists do not reject reforms. Only a dilettante
2161
misrepresents the position of his enemies. And, as can be seen
2162
from the above quotes by Bakunin and Kropotkin, anarchists agree
2163
with Mitchinson's comments. Anarchists agree on the need to win
2164
reforms by direct action, which necessitates the creation of
2165
new forms of working class organisation based on firm libertarian
2166
principles and tactics -- organisations like workers' councils,
2167
factory committees, community assemblies and so on.
2168
2169
However, when looking at the fields of struggle open to us, we evaluate
2170
them based on a materialist basis -- looking at the implications of
2171
the tactics in theory and how they *actually worked out in practice.*
2172
Mitchinson obviously refuses to do this. Anarchists, on the other
2173
hand, base their politics on such an evaluation. For example, Bakunin
2174
would have been aware of Proudhon's experiences in the French National
2175
Assembly during the 1848 revolution:
2176
2177
"As soon as I set foot in the parliamentary Sinai, I ceased to
2178
be in touch with the masses; because I was absorbed by my
2179
legislative work, I entirely lost sight of current events . . .
2180
One must have lived in that isolator which is called the National
2181
Assembly to realise how the men who are most completely ignorant
2182
of the state of the country are almost always those who represent
2183
it . . . fear of the people is the sickness of all those who
2184
belong to authority; the people, for those in power, are the
2185
enemy." [Proudhon, quoted by Peter Marshall, _Demanding the
2186
Impossible_, p. 244]
2187
2188
Similarly, the practical experiences of a socialist elected into
2189
Parliament would be easy to predict -- they would be swamped by
2190
bourgeois politics, issues and activities. Anarchism gained such
2191
socialists elected to parliament as Johann Most and Ferdinand
2192
Nieuwenhuis who soon released the correctness of the anarchist
2193
analysis. Thus actual experience confirmed the soundness of
2194
anarchist politics. Mitchinson, on the other hand, has to deny
2195
history -- indeed, he fails to mention the history of Social
2196
Democracy at all in his article.
2197
2198
Thus the claim that we should use "every field open to us" is
2199
idealistic nonsense, at total odds with any claim to use
2200
scientific techniques of analysis (i.e. to being a scientific
2201
socialist) or a supporter of materialist philosophy. It means
2202
the rejection of historical analysis and the embrace of
2203
ahistoric wishful thinking.
2204
2205
Moreover, why do the workers need to "transform" their own
2206
organisations in the first place? Perhaps because they are
2207
bureaucratic organisations in which power is centralised
2208
at the top, in a few hands? Why did this happen, if fighting
2209
for reforms by any suitable means (including electioneering)
2210
was their rationale? Perhaps because the wrong people are in
2211
positions of power? But why are they the wrong people? Because
2212
they are right-wing, have reformist ideas, etc. Why do they have
2213
reformist ideas? Here Mitchinson must fall silent, because
2214
obviously they have reformist ideas because the organisations
2215
and activities they are part of are reformist through and
2216
through. The tactics (using elections) and organisational
2217
structure (centralisation of power) bred such ideas -- as
2218
Bakunin and other anarchists predicted. Mitchinson's politics
2219
cannot explain why this occurs, which explains why Lenin was
2220
so surprised when German Social Democracy supported its ruling
2221
class during the First World War.
2222
2223
18. How do anarchists struggle for reforms under capitalism?
2224
2225
Mitchinson continues his distortion of anarchism by arguing:
2226
2227
"Marxists fight for every reform, whilst at the same time explaining
2228
that while capitalism continues none of these advances are safe. Only
2229
socialism can really solve the problems of society."
2230
2231
As noted above, anarchists also fight for every reform possible -- but
2232
by direct action, by the strength of working people in their "natural
2233
organisations" and "social power" (to use Bakunin's words). We also
2234
argue that reforms are always in danger -- that is why we need to
2235
have strong, direct action based organisations and self-reliance. If
2236
we leave it to leaders to protect (never mind *win* reforms) we
2237
would not have them for long. Given that Labour governments have
2238
whittled previous reforms just as much as Conservative ones,
2239
anarchists feel our strategy is the relevant one.
2240
2241
Mitchinson continues:
2242
2243
"Our modern day anarchists, Reclaim the Streets and others, have no
2244
support in Britain amongst the organised workers."
2245
2246
Which is not true, as RTS and other anarchists do seek influence with
2247
the organised workers (and the unorganised ones, and the unemployed,
2248
etc.). They have invited rank-and-file trade union activists to their
2249
demonstrations to speak, trade unionists are members of anarchist
2250
organisations, etc. Anarchists are at the forefront of supporting
2251
strikers, particularly when their union betrays their struggle
2252
and does not support them. For example, during the Liverpool
2253
dockers strike RTS and the dockers formed a common front, organised
2254
common demonstrations and so on. The trade unions did nothing to
2255
support the dockers, RTS and other anarchist groups did. That in
2256
itself indicates the weakness of Mitchinson's claims. It would
2257
also be useful to point out that Trotskyists have little support
2258
amongst organised workers as well.
2259
2260
Moreover, anarchists do not seek to become part of the trade union
2261
bureaucracy and so their influence cannot be easily gauged.
2262
2263
After asserting these dubious "facts" about anarchist influence, he
2264
continues:
2265
2266
"Some radicalised youth however are attracted to their 'direct action'
2267
stance. There is a vacuum left by the absence of a mass Labour youth
2268
organisation which, fighting for a socialist programme, could attract
2269
these young workers and students. With no lead being given by the tops
2270
of the unions, and Labour in government attacking young people, that
2271
vacuum can be temporarily and partly filled by groups like Reclaim the
2272
Streets."
2273
2274
Needless to say, Mitchinson does not pose the question *why* the
2275
Labour government is attacking "young people" (and numerous other
2276
sections of the working class). Why has the Labour Party, a mass
2277
workers party which uses elections to gain reforms, been attacking
2278
(as it has always done, we must note) its support? If its because
2279
the leaders are "right-wing" then why have the membership supported
2280
them? Why have the "right-wing" gained such influence? Also, why
2281
is there no "mass Labour youth organisation"? And why should
2282
"young people" join an organisation which is part of the party
2283
which is attacking them? And why are the "tops of the unions" not
2284
giving a "lead"? Perhaps because its not in their interests to
2285
do so? Because they hate direct action and radical workers as
2286
much as the bosses?
2287
2288
Mitchinson's "analysis" is question begging in the extreme.
2289
2290
He continues:
2291
2292
"What action do they propose though? In their press statement (2/5/00)
2293
they explain, 'We were not protesting. Under the shadow of an irrelevant
2294
parliament we were planting the seeds of a society where ordinary people
2295
are in control of their land, their resources, their food and their
2296
decision making. The garden symbolised an urge to be self-reliant
2297
rather than dependent on capitalism.'"
2298
2299
Firstly, we should point out that having access to land *is* a key
2300
way for workers to be independent of capitalism. Perhaps Mitchinson
2301
forgets Marx's discussion of the colonies in chapter 33 of _Capital_?
2302
In it Marx discusses how access to land allowed immigrants to
2303
America and Australia to reject wage labour (i.e. capitalism) by
2304
providing them with the means to survive without selling themselves
2305
on the labour market to survive. The state had to be used to
2306
enforce the laws of supply and demand by restricting access to
2307
the land. Or, perhaps, he had forgotten Marx's discussion in
2308
chapter 27 of _Capital_ of the role of enclosures in creating a
2309
dispossessed mass of people who were forced, by necessity, to become
2310
the first generation of wage slaves? Either way, access to the land
2311
*was* (and still is, in many countries) a means of being independent
2312
of capitalism -- and one which the state acts to destroy.
2313
2314
Secondly, the garden was a *symbol* of a communist society, not
2315
an expression of the type of society RTS and other anarchists
2316
desire. So, as a *symbol* of a anti-capitalist vision, the garden
2317
is a good one given the history of state violence used to separate
2318
working people from the land and propel them into the labour market.
2319
However, it is only a *symbol* and not, obviously, to be taken as
2320
an example of the future society RTS or other anarchists desire.
2321
Only someone lacking in imagination could confuse a symbol with a
2322
vision -- as the press release states it "celebrated the possibility
2323
of a world that encourages co-operation and sharing rather than one
2324
which rewards greed, individualism and competition."
2325
2326
Thirdly, as their press release states, "Guerrilla Gardening is not
2327
a protest; by its very nature it is a creative peaceful celebration
2328
of the growing global anticapitalist movement." Mitchinson attacks
2329
the action for being something it was never intended to be.
2330
2331
He "analyses" the RTS press release:
2332
2333
"The fact that parliament appears powerless to prevent job losses
2334
or the destruction of the environment, only demonstrates that it
2335
serves the interests of capitalism."
2336
2337
Very true, as Kropotkin argued the "State is there to protect
2338
exploitation, speculation and private property; it is itself
2339
the by-product of the rapine of the people. The proletariat
2340
must rely on his own hands; he can expect nothing of the
2341
State. It is nothing more than an organisation devised to
2342
hinder emancipation at all costs." [_Words of a Rebel_,
2343
p. 27] He argues elsewhere that "small groups of men [and
2344
women] were imbued with the . . . spirit of revolt. They
2345
also rebelled -- sometimes with the hope of partial success;
2346
for example winning a strike and of obtaining bread for
2347
their children . . . Without the menace contained in such
2348
revolts, no serious concession has ever been wrung by the
2349
people from governing classes." [_Evolution and Environment_,
2350
p. 103]
2351
2352
Mitchinson seems to agree:
2353
2354
"However, under pressure from below it is possible to introduce
2355
reforms through parliament that are in the interests of ordinary
2356
people."
2357
2358
Thus reforms *are* possible, but only if we rely on ourselves,
2359
organise pressure from below and use direct action to force
2360
parliament to act (if that is required). Which is what anarchists
2361
have always argued. Without anti-parliamentary action, parliament
2362
will ignore the population. That is what anarchists have always
2363
argued -- we have to reply on our own organisations, solidarity
2364
and direct action to change things for the better. Faced with
2365
such a movement, parliament would introduce reforms regardless
2366
of who was a member of it. Without such a movement, you end up
2367
with Tony Blair. Thus Mitchinson is confused -- by his own
2368
logic, the anarchists are correct, we have to work outside
2369
parliament and electioneering in order to be effective.
2370
2371
He continues:
2372
2373
"It is no use declaring parliament to be irrelevant, and
2374
turning your back on it when the majority do not agree, and still
2375
look to government to make their lives better. This is the mirror
2376
image of the sects attitude to the Labour Party. Any and every
2377
avenue which can be used to improve our lives must be used."
2378
2379
How do you change the opinion of the majority? By changing
2380
your position to match theirs? Of course not. You change
2381
their position by argument and proving that direct action
2382
is more effective in making their lives better than looking
2383
to government. Mitchinson would have a fit if someone argued
2384
"it is no use declaring capitalism to be wrong and fighting
2385
against it when the majority do not agree and still look
2386
to it to make their lives better." If the majority do not
2387
agree with you, then you try and change their opinion --
2388
you do not accept that opinion and hope it goes away by
2389
itself!
2390
2391
Mitchinson seems to be following Lenin when he argued
2392
"[y]ou must not sink to the level of the masses . . . You
2393
must tell them the bitter truth. You are duty bound
2394
to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary
2395
prejudices what they are -- prejudices. But at the same
2396
time you must *soberly* follow the *actual* state of
2397
the class-consciousness . . . of *all* the toiling
2398
masses." [_Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder_,
2399
p. 41] Obviously, you cannot tell workers the bitter
2400
truth and at the same time follow their prejudices. In
2401
practice, if you follow their prejudices you cannot help
2402
but encourage faith in parliament, social democratic
2403
parties, leaders and so on. Progress is achieved by
2404
discussing issues with people, not ducking the question
2405
of political issues in favour of saying what the majority
2406
want to hear (which is what the capitalist media and
2407
education system encourage them to believe in the first
2408
place). As a means of encouraging revolutionary thought
2409
it is doomed to failure.
2410
2411
Also, just to stress the point, any and every avenue which
2412
can be used to improve our lives must be used but only if
2413
it actually is revolutionary and does not place obstacles
2414
in the process of social change. Parliamentary action has
2415
been proven time and time again to be a false way for
2416
radical change -- it only ends up turning radicals into
2417
supporters of the status quo. It makes as much sense as
2418
arguing that any and every avenue must be used to cure a
2419
disease, including those which give you a new disease in
2420
its place.
2421
2422
19. How does Mitchinson distorts the use of the term "Self-reliance"?
2423
2424
Mitchinson argues that:
2425
2426
"In any case this 'self-reliance' is no alternative. Self-reliance
2427
won't get electricity into your house, educate your children or
2428
treat you when you are ill."
2429
2430
No anarchist and no one in RTS ever claimed it would. We use the
2431
term "self-reliance" in a totally different way -- as anyone
2432
familiar with anarchist or RTS theory would know. We use it to
2433
describe individuals who think for themselves, question authority,
2434
act for themselves and do not follow leaders. No anarchist uses
2435
the term to describe some sort of peasant life-style. But then
2436
why let facts get in the way of a nice diatribe?
2437
2438
He continues:
2439
2440
"We have the resources to cater for all of society's needs, the
2441
only problem is that we do not own them."
2442
2443
Actually, the *real* problem is that we do not *control* them.
2444
The examples of Nationalised industries and the Soviet Union
2445
should make this clear. In theory, they were both owned by their
2446
populations but, in practice, they were effectively owned by
2447
those who managed them -- state bureaucrats and managers. They
2448
were not used to cater for our needs, but rather the needs of
2449
those who controlled them. For this reason anarchists argue
2450
that common ownership without workers' self-management in the
2451
workplace and community would be little more than state
2452
capitalism (wage labour would still exist, but the state would
2453
replace the boss).
2454
2455
He continues with his distortion of the concept of "self-reliance":
2456
2457
"Individualism (self-reliance) cannot be an alternative to socialism,
2458
where all the resources of society are at all of our disposal, and
2459
equally we all contribute what we can to society."
2460
2461
Firstly, anarchists are socialists and mostly seek a (libertarian)
2462
communist society where the resources of the world are at our
2463
disposal.
2464
2465
Secondly, self-reliance has little to do with "individualism" --
2466
it has a lot to do with *individuality,* however. The difference
2467
is important.
2468
2469
Thirdly, in a part of the press release strangely unquoted by
2470
Mitchinson, RTS argue that their action "celebrated the possibility
2471
of a world that encourages co-operation and sharing rather than one
2472
which rewards greed, individualism and competition." RTS are
2473
well aware that self-reliance does not equal individualism and
2474
they are very clear that oppose individualism and desire
2475
co-operation. Given that Mitchinson quotes from their press
2476
release, he must know this and yet he asserts the opposite.
2477
2478
Mitchinson seems to equate self-reliance with "individualism"
2479
and so, presumably, capitalism. However, capitalists do not
2480
want self-reliant workers, they want order takers, people
2481
who will not question their authority. As David Noble points
2482
out, after an experiment in workers' control General Electric
2483
replaces it with a the regime that was "designed to 'break' the
2484
pilots of their new found 'habits' of self-reliance, self-discipline,
2485
and self-respect." [_Forces of Production_, p. 307]
2486
2487
Capitalists know the danger of self-reliant people. Self-reliant
2488
people question authority, think for themselves, do not follow
2489
leaders and bring these abilities into any groups they join.
2490
Thus self-reliance is not purely an individual thing, it also
2491
refers to groups *and* classes. Anarchists desire to see a
2492
self-reliant working class -- a class which makes its own
2493
decisions and does not follow leaders. Thus, for anarchists,
2494
self-reliance refers to *both* individuals and groups (just
2495
as self-management and self-liberation does). Needless to
2496
say, for those in authority or those seeking authority
2497
self-reliance is an evil thing which must be combated. Hence
2498
Mitchinson's diatribe -- it is the cry of the would-be leader
2499
who is afraid his followers will not respect his authority.
2500
2501
20. Is anarchism an example of "Philosophical idealism"?
2502
2503
He turns to the May Day demonstration:
2504
2505
"Guerrilla gardening and its related varieties that have sprung up
2506
in various places, is nothing more than an offshoot of the old
2507
utopian idea of changing society by example."
2508
2509
Actually, it was a specific demonstration to encourage people
2510
to get involved in collective action, to have a good time and
2511
challenge authority and the status quo. It was an attempt to
2512
change society by example only in the sense that it would
2513
encourage others to act, to challenge the status quo and
2514
get involved in collective action. If Mitchinson was consistent
2515
he would have to oppose *every* demonstration that occurred
2516
before the final insurrection that created the "workers'
2517
state" -- a demonstration is, by its very nature, an example
2518
to others of what is possible, an example of our collective
2519
strength and our desire for change. You may be critical of
2520
the nature of the guerrilla gardening action (and many
2521
anarchists are), but you cannot misrepresent its nature as
2522
Mitchinson does and be expected to be taken seriously.
2523
2524
He continues:
2525
2526
"The roots of this scheme lie in idealist philosophy. Philosophical
2527
idealism refers to the notion that people's actions are a consequence
2528
of their thoughts, that ideas and not our conditions of life determine
2529
our outlook. When, through a long process of accumulation, we change
2530
people's minds, then they will live differently, capitalism will simply
2531
be redundant. The capitalist class themselves will presumably sit
2532
idly by and watch their system fall apart."
2533
2534
Given that the "anti-capitalist" demonstrations have meet extensive
2535
state violence, it is clear that those involved are well aware
2536
that capitalist class will not just watch its power disappear.
2537
2538
Also, calling RTS's action "idealist philosophy" is quite ironic for
2539
someone who seems intent in ignoring the history of Social Democracy
2540
and dismisses attempts to analyse the Bolsheviks in power as
2541
"bourgeois slanders." However, Mitchinson in his diatribe forgets
2542
one of the basic arguments of materialism -- namely that ideas
2543
themselves are part of the material world and so influence society
2544
and how it develops. He rejects the notion that peoples thoughts
2545
and ideas determine their actions. He obviously thinks that people
2546
operate on auto-pilot, not thinking about their actions. However,
2547
in reality, what people do is dependent on their thoughts -- they
2548
think about their actions and what motivates them influences their
2549
activity. If thoughts did not determine people's actions then
2550
Mitchinson would not have spent so much time writing this article!
2551
2552
Thus Mitchinson is well aware of the importance of ideas in social
2553
change, at least implicitly. Indeed, he argues for the need for
2554
a "mass Labour youth organisation which, fighting for a socialist
2555
programme, could attract these young workers and students." To
2556
state the obvious, a socialist programme is a means to "change
2557
people's minds" and present the possibility of creating a new
2558
society. Does he seriously think a socialist revolution is
2559
possible without changing people's minds, getting them to desire
2560
a socialist society?
2561
2562
Moreover, if he had read Bakunin he would be aware that anarchists
2563
consider the class struggle as the way to change people's ideas.
2564
As Bakunin argued:
2565
2566
"the germs of [socialist thought] . . . [are to] be found
2567
in the instinct of every earnest worker. The goal . . .
2568
is to make the worker fully aware of what he wants, to
2569
unjam within him a stream of thought corresponding to his
2570
instinct . . . What impedes the swifter development of this
2571
salutary though among the working masses? Their ignorance to
2572
be sure, that is, for the most part the political and religious
2573
prejudices with which self-interested classes still try to
2574
obscure their conscious and their natural instinct. How can
2575
we dispel this ignorance and destroy these harmful prejudices?
2576
By education and propaganda? . . . they are insufficient . . .
2577
[and] who will conduct this propaganda? . . . [The] workers'
2578
world . . . is left with but a single path, that of
2579
*emancipation through practical action* . . . It means
2580
workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses.
2581
It means *trade-unions*, *organisation* . . . To deliver
2582
[the worker] from that ignorance [of reactionary ideas],
2583
the International relies on collective experience he gains
2584
in its bosom, especially on the progress of the collective
2585
struggle of the workers against the bosses . . . As soon
2586
as he begins to take an active part in this wholly material
2587
struggle, . . . Socialism replaces religion in his mind. . .
2588
through practice and collective experience . . . the
2589
progressive and development of the economic struggle will
2590
bring him more and more to recognise his true enemies . . .
2591
The workers thus enlisted in the struggle will necessarily
2592
. . . recognise himself to be a revolutionary socialist, and
2593
he will act as one." [_The Basic Bakunin_, pp. 102-3]
2594
2595
Thus anarchists are aware that experience determines thought
2596
but we are also aware that thought is essential for action.
2597
We recognise the importance of ideas in the class struggle
2598
but we also realise that the ideas people have change as
2599
a result of that struggle. To state otherwise is to misrepresent
2600
anarchist thought.
2601
2602
21. How is Mitchinson's critique self-contradictory?
2603
2604
He continues his distortion:
2605
2606
"Whilst believing in a revolutionary struggle to overthrow capitalism,
2607
anarchists argue that it must be replaced by...nothing."
2608
2609
This is ironic for quite a few reasons. Firstly, above Mitchinson
2610
claimed that anarchists did not aim to overthrow capitalism, just
2611
the state. Now he is claiming we *do* believe in overthrowing
2612
capitalism. Secondly, he quoted Trotsky saying that anarchists
2613
just ignore the state. Now Mitchinson states we aim to overthrow
2614
the capitalism via revolutionary struggle. How do you overthrow
2615
something via revolutionary struggle by ignoring it? His critique
2616
is not even internally consistent.
2617
2618
Moreover, he is well aware what anarchists want to replace capitalism
2619
with, after all he quotes an anarchist conference which stated that
2620
they aimed for "the creation of an absolutely free economic organisation
2621
and federation based on work and equality"! Bakunin was always arguing
2622
that the International Workers Association should become "an earnest
2623
organisation of workers associations from all countries, capable of
2624
replacing this departing world of States and bourgeoisie." [_The
2625
Basic Bakunin_, p. 110] In other words, the "future social
2626
organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by
2627
the free association of workers, first in their unions, then in
2628
the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation,
2629
international and universal." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_,
2630
p. 206] Even Engels acknowledged that the anarchists aimed to
2631
"dispose all the authorities, abolish the state and replace it
2632
with the organisation of the International." [Marx, Engels and Lenin,
2633
Op. Cit., p. 72] Anyone with even a basic knowledge of anarchist theory
2634
would know this. And given that Mitchinson stated that "Marx saw a
2635
future society without a state" as well and that he quotes Trotsky
2636
as arguing "Marxists are wholly in agreement with the anarchists in
2637
regard to the final goal: the liquidation of the state" we can only
2638
assume that Marxists also aim at replacing it, eventually, when the
2639
state "withers away," with "nothing."
2640
2641
This sentence, more than any other, shows the level which some Marxists
2642
will sink to when discussing anarchism. It shows that the standard
2643
Marxist critique of anarchism is little more than an inconsistent
2644
collection of lies, distortion and misrepresentation. Mitchinson not
2645
only contradicts his ideological gurus, he even contradicts himself!
2646
That is truly impressive.
2647
2648
22. How did Trotsky make the trains run on time?
2649
2650
Mitchinson asks:
2651
2652
"Yet with no central apparatus, no organisation, how would the
2653
trains run on time, how could organ transplants be organised,
2654
how could the world's resources be channelled into permanently
2655
overcoming famine."
2656
2657
Firstly, we must note the usual fallacy -- being opposed to
2658
a "central apparatus" does not imply "no organisation." Instead
2659
of centralised organisation, anarchists propose *federal*
2660
organisations in which co-ordination is achieved by collective
2661
decision making from the bottom up. In other words, rather
2662
than delegate power into the hands of "leaders", an anarchist
2663
organisation leaves power at the bottom and co-ordination
2664
results from collective agreements that reflect the needs
2665
of those directly affected by them. Thus a federal organisation
2666
co-ordinates activities but in a bottom-up fashion rather
2667
than top-down, as in a centralised body.
2668
2669
Secondly, needless to say, anarchists are quite clear on who would
2670
make the trains run on time -- the railway workers. Anarchists are
2671
firm supporters of workers' self-management. Anyone with even
2672
a basic understanding of anarchist theory would know that.
2673
Moreover, the experience of workers' self-management of the
2674
railways by the anarchist union the CNT during the Spanish
2675
Revolution indicates that such anarchism can, and does, ensure
2676
that the trains run on time In contrast, the experience of Russia
2677
proved a total failure. It is quite appropriate that Mitchinson
2678
uses the "trains running on time" example, after all it is what
2679
apologists for Italian fascism praised Mussolini for! This is
2680
because Trotsky (when he ran the railways) did so in a way that
2681
Mussolini would have been proud of -- he subjected the railway
2682
workers to military discipline:
2683
2684
"Due to the Civil War -- and to other factors less often
2685
mentioned, such as the attitude of the railway workers to
2686
the 'new' regime -- the Russian railways had virtually
2687
ceased to function. Trotsky, Commissar for Transport, was
2688
granted wide emergency powers [in August 1920] to try out
2689
his theories of 'militarisation of labour.' He started out
2690
placing the railwaymen and the personnel of the repair
2691
workshops under martial law. When the railwaymen's trade
2692
union objected, he summarily ousted its leaders and,
2693
*with the full support and endorsement of the Party
2694
leadership,* 'appointed others willing to do his bidding.
2695
He repeated the procedure in other unions of transport
2696
workers.'" [Maurice Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and Workers'
2697
Control_, p. 67]
2698
2699
He ruled the "central apparatus" he created, called the
2700
Tsektran, "along strict military and bureaucratic lines."
2701
[Ibid.] The trains did start moving again, of course. The
2702
question is -- do workers manage their own activity or
2703
does some other group. Trotsky and Lenin in power decided
2704
for the latter -- and built the "centralised apparatus"
2705
required to ensure that result. Needless to say, Trotsky
2706
did not justify his militarisation of work in terms of
2707
necessary evils resulting from appalling objective
2708
conditions. Rather he saw it as a matter of "principle":
2709
2710
"The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia.
2711
They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded,
2712
just like soldiers."
2713
2714
"The very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist
2715
quite unquestionable . . . the only solution to economic
2716
difficulties from the point of view of both principle
2717
and of practice is to treat the population of the whole
2718
country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power . . .
2719
and to introduce strict order into the work of its registration,
2720
mobilisation and utilisation."
2721
2722
"The introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable
2723
without the application . . . of the methods of militarisation
2724
of labour." [quoted by M. Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 61 and p. 66]
2725
2726
Why "principle"? Perhaps because Marx and Engels had stated
2727
in _The Communist Manifesto_ that one of the measures
2728
required during the revolution was the "[e]stablishment
2729
of industrial armies"? [_Selected Writings_, p. 53]
2730
2731
Moreover, the experience of "central apparatus" in Bolshevik
2732
Russia helped create famine -- the vast bureaucracy spawned
2733
by the "workers' state" could not handle the information a
2734
centralised distribution system required. Food rotted in
2735
trains waiting for bureaucrats to "channel" resources (and,
2736
needless to say, the bureaucrats never went hungry).
2737
2738
23. Can centralised planning meet the needs of the whole of society?
2739
2740
Our Marxist friend then quotes _Maybe_:
2741
2742
"The radical social movements that are increasingly coming
2743
together don't want to seize power but to dissolve it. They
2744
are dreaming up many autonomous alternative forms of social
2745
organisation, forms that are directly linked to the specific
2746
needs of locality. What might be an alternative to capitalism
2747
for people living currently in a housing estate in Croydon is
2748
completely different to what might be suitable for the
2749
inhabitants of the slums of Delhi."
2750
2751
He comments on these very sensible words:
2752
2753
"It cannot be of no concern to us what form a new society will
2754
take in different countries or even different regions. The economic
2755
power we have created over centuries can and must be used in a planned,
2756
rational way to eradicate hunger, disease and illiteracy. It must be
2757
used in the interests of the whole of society."
2758
2759
Obviously, the needs of actual people, what sort of society they
2760
want, is irrelevant to Marxism. Also ignored is the fact that
2761
different cultures will have different visions of what a free
2762
society will be like. Thus, for Mitchinson, everyone, everywhere,
2763
will be subject to the same form of society -- "in the interests of
2764
society." However, as Bakunin argued, the state "is an arbitrary
2765
creature in whose breast all the positive, living, individual or
2766
local interests of the people clash, destroy and absorb each other
2767
into the abstraction known as the common interest, the *public good*
2768
or the *public welfare*, and where all real wills are dissolved
2769
into the other abstraction that bears the name of *the will of
2770
the people.* It follows that this alleged will of the people
2771
is never anything but the sacrifice and dissolution of all the
2772
real wants of the population, just as this so-called public
2773
good is nothing but the sacrifice of their interests." [_Michael
2774
Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 265-6]
2775
2776
The different needs of different areas and regions must be
2777
the starting point of any social reconstruction, the basis on
2778
which we create specific programmes to improve our societies,
2779
eco-systems and world. If we do not recognise the diversity
2780
inherent in a world of billions of people, millions of eco-systems,
2781
thousands of cultures, hundreds of regions then we cannot use
2782
the resources of society to improve our lives. Instead we would
2783
have uniform plan imposed on everything which, by its very nature,
2784
cannot take into accounts the real needs of those who make up
2785
"the whole of society." In other words, the resources of the
2786
world must not be used by an abstraction claiming to act "in the
2787
interests of society" but rather by the people who actually make
2788
up society themselves -- if we do that we ensure that their
2789
interests are meet directly as they manage their own affairs
2790
and that their use reflects the specific requirements of
2791
specific people and eco-systems and not some abstraction
2792
called "the interests of society" which, by its centralised
2793
nature, would sacrifice those interests.
2794
2795
Of course, it seems somewhat strange that Mitchinson thinks that
2796
b'people in, say, New Delhi or Croyden, will not seek to eradicate'
2797
hunger, disease and illiteracy as they see fit, co-operating with
2798
others as and when they need to and creating the federative
2799
organisations required to do so. The need to share experiences
2800
and resources does not conflict with the different areas
2801
experimenting in different ways, expressing themselves in ways
2802
which suit their particular needs and difficulties. As any
2803
ecologist could tell you, different eco-systems need different
2804
forms of care. The same with communities -- Mitchinson would
2805
drown local needs in the name of an artificial construct.
2806
2807
He continues:
2808
2809
"That can only be achieved by the democratic planning of society where
2810
the power at our fingertips could be used with due respect for the
2811
future of the planet, the conservation of it's resources, our own
2812
working conditions, and living standards. Whether we like it or not,
2813
growing a few carrots on empty plots of land will not eradicate hunger
2814
and famine."
2815
2816
How can "democratic planning" of the whole "of society" take into
2817
account the needs of specific localities, eco-systems, communities?
2818
It cannot. Respect for the future of our planet means respecting
2819
the fundamental law of nature -- namely that conformity is death.
2820
Diversity is the law of life -- which means that a future socialist
2821
society must be libertarian, organised from the bottom up, based
2822
on local self-management and a respect for diversity. Such a
2823
federal structures does not preclude co-ordinated activity (or
2824
the creation of democratic *plans*) -- the reverse in fact, as
2825
federalism exists to allow co-ordination -- but instead of being
2826
imposed by a few "leaders" as in a centralised system, it is the
2827
product of local needs and so reflective of the needs of real
2828
people and eco-systems.
2829
2830
As for his comment about "due respect of the future of the planet"
2831
is obviously inspired by "the youth" being concerned about ecological
2832
issues. However, Leninism's desire for centralised states and planning
2833
excludes an ecological perspective by definition. As Bakunin argued:
2834
2835
"What man, what group of individuals, no matter how great their
2836
genius, would dare to think themselves able to embrace and
2837
understand the plethora of interests, attitudes and activities
2838
so various in every country, every province, locality and
2839
profession." [Op. Cit., p. 240]
2840
2841
Diversity is the basis of any eco-system. Centralism cannot, as
2842
Bakunin makes clear, embrace it.
2843
2844
Needless to say, Mitchinson's comments about carrots is pure
2845
stupidity and an insult to the intelligence of his audience.
2846
2847
24. Is technology neutral?
2848
2849
Mitchinson goes on:
2850
2851
"We have the power to do just that, but only if we combine new
2852
technology, industry and the talents and active participation of
2853
millions."
2854
2855
Needless to say, he fails to indicate how the millions *can*
2856
participate in a "centralised apparatus" beyond electing their
2857
"leaders." Which indicates the fallacy of Marxism -- it claims
2858
to desire a society based on the participation of everyone yet
2859
favours a form of organisation -- centralisation -- that precludes
2860
that participation.
2861
2862
In addition, he fails to note that technology and industry have
2863
been developed by capitalists to enhance their own power. As
2864
we argued in section D.10, technology cannot be viewed in
2865
isolation from the class struggle. This means that industry
2866
and technology was not developed to allow the active participation
2867
of millions. The first act of any revolution will be seizing
2868
of the means of life -- including industry and technology --
2869
by those who use it and, from that moment on, their radical
2870
transformation into *appropriate* technology and industry,
2871
based on the needs of the workers, the community and the
2872
planet. Mitchinson obvious shares the common Marxist failing
2873
of believing technology and industry is neutral. In this he
2874
follows Lenin. As S.A. Smith correctly summarises:
2875
2876
"Lenin believed that socialism could be built only on the
2877
basis of large-scale industry as developed by capitalism,
2878
with its specific types of productivity and social
2879
organisation of labour. Thus for him, capitalist methods
2880
of labour-discipline or one-man management were not
2881
necessarily incompatible with socialism. Indeed, he went
2882
so far as to consider them to be inherently progressive,
2883
failing to recognise that such methods undermined workers'
2884
initiative at the point of production. This was because
2885
Lenin believed that the transition to socialism was
2886
guaranteed, ultimately, not by the self-activity of
2887
workers, but by the 'proletarian' character of state
2888
power. . . There is no doubt that Lenin did conceive
2889
proletarian power in terms of the central state and
2890
lacked a conception of localising such power at the
2891
point of production." [_Red Petrograd_, pp. 261-2]
2892
2893
The Russian workers, unsurprisingly, had a different
2894
perspective:
2895
2896
"Implicit in the movement for workers' control was
2897
a belief that capitalist methods cannot be used for
2898
socialist ends. In their battle to democratise the
2899
factory, in their emphasis on the importance of
2900
collective initiatives by the direct producers in
2901
transforming the work situation, the factory committees
2902
had become aware -- in a partial and groping way, to
2903
be sure -- that factories are not merely sites of
2904
production, but also of reproduction -- the reproduction
2905
of a certain structure of social relations based on the
2906
division between those who give orders and those who
2907
take them, between those who direct and those who execute
2908
. . . inscribed within their practice was a distinctive
2909
vision of socialism, central to which was workplace
2910
democracy." [Op. Cit., p. 261]
2911
2912
The movement for workers' control was undermined and finally
2913
replaced by one-man management by the kind of "central
2914
apparatus" Mitchinson urges us to build (see M. Brinton's
2915
classic work _The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_ for
2916
more details). Those who do not study history are doomed
2917
to repeat it.
2918
2919
He goes on:
2920
2921
"The economic power we have created can be compared to the
2922
destructive force of lightning, untamed and anarchic under
2923
the market, yet organised into cables and wires electricity
2924
transforms our lives. Industry is not the enemy, nor are machines.
2925
The state is, but it is a symptom not the disease. It is capitalism
2926
and its ownership of the economy, its stewardship of society that
2927
we have to replace."
2928
2929
However, unlike electricity, "economic power" requires people
2930
to operate it. The question is not whether "machines" are the
2931
enemy (often they are, as machines are used by capitalists to
2932
weaken the power of workers and control them). The question is
2933
whether the future society we aim at is one based on workers'
2934
and community self-management or whether it is based on an
2935
authoritarian system of delegated power. It is clear that
2936
Marxists like Mitchinson desire the latter -- indeed, as is
2937
clear from his diatribe, he cannot comprehend an alternative
2938
to hierarchical organisation.
2939
2940
Given that one of the things capitalism and the state have in
2941
common is a hierarchical, top-down structure, it is clear that
2942
any revolutionary movement must fight both -- at the same time.
2943
2944
25. Do anarchists ignore the "strength of the working class"?
2945
2946
Mitchinson argues that:
2947
2948
"The task of our time is to combine the strength and experience
2949
of the working class and its mighty organisations with the power
2950
and energy of the youth internationally, on the basis of a clear
2951
understanding of what capitalism is, what the state is, and a
2952
programme for changing society. That requires a combination of
2953
theory and action. In that combination lies the strength of Marxism."
2954
2955
The first question is surely *what* "mighty organisations" of the
2956
working class is he talking about. Is it the Labour Party? Or is
2957
it the trade unions? Probably the latter -- if so, the question
2958
is how effective have these "mighty organisations" been recently?
2959
The answer must, surely, be "not very." Why is that? In union
2960
there is strength, as anarchists have long been aware. Why has
2961
this strength been so lacking? Simply because the unions are
2962
centralised, bureaucratic and run from the top down. They have
2963
placed numerous barriers in front of their members when they
2964
have taken militant action. That is why anarchists urge workers
2965
to form rank-and-file controlled organisations to manage their
2966
own struggles and take back the power they have delegated to
2967
their so-called leaders. Only in this way, by building truly
2968
revolutionary organisations like workers' councils (soviets),
2969
factory committees, community assemblies and so on can they
2970
really create a "mighty" force. In other words, anarchists
2971
are well aware of the strength of working class people and
2972
their power to change society -- indeed, as proven above,
2973
anarchism is based on that awareness and organise appropriately!
2974
2975
The second question is surely to ask whether Mitchinson is
2976
aware that _Reclaim the Streets_ have been building links with
2977
rank and file trade union militants for years -- long before
2978
Mitchinson decided to enlighten them with "the strength of Marxism."
2979
In other words, "the strength of Marxism" seems to rest in telling
2980
radical working class people to do what they have already
2981
doing! Such strength is truly amazing and must explain the
2982
prominent role Leninists have had in the numerous anti-capitalist
2983
demonstrations and organisations recently.
2984
2985
Needless to say, *anarchism* provides "a clear understanding of
2986
what capitalism is, what the state is, and a programme for changing
2987
society. That requires a combination of theory and action." This
2988
has been proven above when we corrected Mitchinson's numerous
2989
errors regarding anarchist theory. Moreover, as far as combining
2990
theory and action goes, it is clear that *anarchism* has been
2991
doing that of late, *not* Marxism. While anarchists have been
2992
at the forefront of the anti-capitalist demonstrations, working
2993
with others as equals, Marxists have been noticeable by their
2994
absence. Combining theory and practice, non-hierarchically
2995
organised direct action closed down the WTO and presented a
2996
clear message to the oppressed around the world -- *resistance
2997
is fertile.* What have Marxists achieved? Apparently producing
2998
articles such as these, distorting the politics and activities
2999
of those who actually *are* changing the world rather than
3000
just interpreting it. That they cannot produce an honest
3001
critique of anarchism indicates the uselessness of their
3002
politics.
3003
3004
26. What does Mitchinson's article tell about the nature of Trotskyism?
3005
3006
He finishes his diatribe as follows:
3007
3008
"If you want to fight against capitalism, do so fully armed with a
3009
socialist programme and perspective. Join with us in the struggle
3010
for the socialist transformation of the planet."
3011
3012
It is clear that to be "fully armed with a socialist programme"
3013
means to critique that which you know nothing about, spread
3014
slanders and lie about what your opponents actually think.
3015
There *is* much to be critical of in the recent anti-capitalist
3016
demonstrations and the various groups that have helped organise
3017
and take part in them. Anarchists have been the first to point
3018
these out. However, we have a lot to learn from them as well --
3019
they are struggling against capitalism and, as Kropotkin argues,
3020
"Anarchism . . . originated in everyday struggles" and "the
3021
Anarchist movement was renewed each time it received an
3022
impression from some great practical lesson: it derived its
3023
origin from the teachings of life itself." [_Evolution and
3024
Environment_, p. 58 and p. 57]
3025
3026
Thus we must critique these movements honestly and as equals --
3027
Mitchinson, as can be seen, does neither. He slanders those
3028
involved and dismisses out of hand their experiences and the
3029
reasons that have brought them to struggle in a specific way
3030
against the dominant society. In this he follows Lenin, who
3031
argued in _Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder_ that
3032
western revolutionaries ignore their own experiences in their
3033
own -- and similar -- countries and instead follow the "lessons"
3034
of experiences gained in a near pre-capitalist, absolutist state.
3035
The stupidity of such an approach is clear.
3036
3037
Mitchinson presents those in struggle with the ultimatum
3038
"subscribe to our platform or be denounced." Little wonder that
3039
Leninists are non-existent in the groups that have taken part
3040
and organised the anti-capitalist demonstrations -- not willing
3041
to learn from those involved in the class struggle, all they
3042
can do is act as petty sectarians. Sectarians expect working
3043
class people to relate to their predetermined political positions,
3044
whereas revolutionaries apply our politics to the conditions we
3045
face as members of the working class. For Leninists revolutionary
3046
consciousness is not generated by working class self-activity, but
3047
is embodied in the party. The important issues facing the working
3048
class -- and how to fight -- are to be determined not by the workers
3049
ourselves, but by the leadership of the party, who are the "vanguard
3050
of the working class". Hence Mitchinson's dismissal (in a particularly
3051
dishonest manner, we must stress) of those involved in struggle and
3052
their experiences. True "revolution" obviously lies in the unchanging
3053
ideas generated at the start of the twentieth century in a monarchy
3054
developing towards capitalism, *not* in the experiences and desires
3055
of living people fighting for freedom in the here and now. Yes,
3056
these ideas and movements can be confused and unclear -- but they
3057
are living and subject to change by the influence of revolutionaries
3058
who act in a libertarian manner (i.e. as equals, willing to learn
3059
as well as teach).
3060
3061
The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci once wrote that "to tell the
3062
truth is a communist and revolutionary act." However, even he
3063
did not apply this when discussing anarchism and the activities
3064
of anarchists (see Gwyn Williams' _Proletarian Order_, pp. 193-4).
3065
Be that as it may, Gramsci's point is correct. Telling the truth
3066
is a revolutionary act. If we judge Mitchinson's article by this
3067
standard then we can only conclude that neither he nor the
3068
politics he defends are revolutionary or communist.
3069
3070
Thus we find his ending comment truly a "flight of fancy" -- after
3071
reading our comments above, we hope you agree with us. If you seek
3072
a *true* socialist transformation of this planet rather than its
3073
degeneration into centralised state capitalism, discover more
3074
about anarchism.
Loggerhead is a web-based interface for Breezy
Version: 2.0.1