~corti-nico/ubuntu/vivid/anarchism/fix1426015 : revision 5

1

<html>

2

<head>

3

4

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

5

6

</head>

7

8

<body>

9

10

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

11

12

13

Anarchists are well aware of the importance of building organisations.

14

Organisations allow those within them to multiply their strength and

15

activity, becoming the means by which an individual can see their ideas,

16

hopes and dreams realised. This is as true for getting the anarchist

17

message across as for building a home, running a hospital or creating

18

some useful product. Anarchists support two types of organisation --

19

organisations of anarchists and popular organisations which are not

20

made up exclusively of anarchists such as industrial unions,

21

co-operatives and community assemblies.

22

23

Here we will discuss the kinds, nature and role of the first type

24

of organisation, namely explicitly anarchist organisations. In addition,

25

we discuss anarcho-syndicalism, a revolutionary unionism which aims to

26

create an anarchist society by anarchist tactics, as well as why many

27

anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists. The second type of organisations,

28

popular ones, are discussed in <a href="secJ5.html">section J.5</a>.

29

Both forms of organisation, however, share the anarchist commitment to

30

confederalism, decentralisation, self-management and decision making

31

from the bottom up. In such organisations the membership plays the

32

decisive role in running them and ensuring that power remains in their

33

hands. They express the anarchist vision of the power and creative

34

efficacy people have when they are self-reliant, when they act for

35

themselves and manage their own lives directly. Only by organising

36

in this way can we create a new world, a world worthy of human beings

37

and unique individuals.

38

39

Anarchist organisation in all its forms reflects our desire to "build

40

the new world in the shell of the old" and to empower the individual.

41

We reject the notion that it does not really matter how we organise to

42

change society. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. We are

43

all the products of the influences and social relationships in our lives,

44

this is a basic idea of (philosophical) materialism. Thus the way our

45

organisations are structured has an impact on us. If the organisation is

46

centralised and hierarchical (no matter how "democratically" controlled

47

officials or leaders are) then those subject to it will, as in any

48

hierarchical organisation, see their abilities to manage their own

49

lives, their creative thought and imagination eroded under the constant

50

stream of orders from above. This in turn justifies the pretensions to

51

power of those at the top, as the capacity of self-management of the rank

52

and file is weakened by authoritarian social relationships. This means

53

anarchist organisations are structured so that they allow everyone the

54

maximum potential to participate. Such participation is the key for a

55

free organisation. As Malatesta argued:

56

57

"The real being is man, the individual. Society or the collectivity . . .

58

if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of individuals. And it

59

is in the organism of every individual that all thoughts and human actions

60

inevitably have their origin, and from being individual they become

61

collective thoughts and acts when they are or become accepted by many

62

individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the

63

complement of individual initiative, but is the resultant of initiatives,

64

thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up society."

65

[Anarchy, p. 36]

66

</blockquote>

67

Anarchist organisations exist to allow this development and expression

68

of individual initiatives. This empowering of the individual is an

69

important aspect of creating viable solidarity for sheep cannot express

70

solidarity, they only follow the shepherd. Therefore, "to achieve their

71

ends, anarchist organisations must, in their constitution and operation,

72

remain in harmony with the principles of anarchism; that is, they must

73

know how to blend the free action of individuals with the necessity and

74

the joy of co-operation which serve to develop the awareness and initiative

75

of their members and a means of education for the environment in which

76

they operate and of a moral and material preparation for the future we

77

desire." [Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, p. 95]

78

79

As such, anarchist organisations reflect the sort of society anarchists

80

desire. We reject as ridiculous the claim of Leninists that the form

81

of organisation we build is irrelevant and therefore we must create

82

highly centralised parties which aim to become the leadership of

83

the working class. No matter how "democratic" such organisations

84

are, they just reflect the capitalist division of labour between brain

85

and manual work and the Liberal ideology of surrendering our ability to

86

govern ourselves to an elected elite. In other words, they just mirror

87

the very society we are opposed to and so will soon produce the very

88

problems within so-called anti-capitalist organisations which originally

89

motivated us to oppose capitalism in the first place

90

(see <a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>). Given this,

91

anarchists regard "the Marxist party as another statist form that, if it

92

succeeded in 'seizing power,' would preserve the power of one human

93

being over another, the authority of the leader over the led. The Marxist

94

party . . . was a mirror image of the very society it professed to oppose,

95

an invasion of the camp of revolutionaries by bourgeois values, methods,

96

and structures." [The Spanish Anarchists, pp. 179-80] As can be seen

97

from the history of the Russian Revolution, this was the case with the

98

Bolsheviks soon taking the lead in undermining workers' self-management,

99

soviet democracy and, finally, democracy within the ruling party itself

100

(see <a href="secH6.html">section H.6</a>).

101

102

From an anarchist (i.e. materialist) point of view, this was highly

103

predictable -- after all, "facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal,

104

as Proudhon said, is but a flower whose root lies in the material conditions

105

of existence." [Bakunin, God and the State, p. 9] So it is

106

unsurprising that hierarchical parties helped to maintain a hierarchical

107

society. In the words of the famous Sonvillier Circular: "How could

108

one want an egalitarian and free society to issue from an authoritarian

109

organisation? It is impossible." [quoted in Bakunin on Anarchism,

110

p. 45]

111

112

We must stress here that anarchists are not opposed to organisation

113

and are not opposed to organisations of anarchists (i.e. political

114

organisations, although anarchists generally reject the term "party" due

115

to its statist and hierarchical associations). Murray Bookchin made it

116

clear when he wrote that the "real question at issue here is not

117

organisation versus non-organisation, but rather what kind of

118

organisation" Anarchist organisations are "organic developments

119

from below . . . They are social movements, combing a creative revolutionary

120

lifestyle with a creative revolutionary theory . . . As much as is humanly

121

possibly, they try to reflect the liberated society they seek to achieve"

122

and "co-ordination between groups . . . discipline, planning, and unity

123

in action . . . achieved voluntarily, by means of a self-discipline

124

nourished by conviction and understanding." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism,

125

pp. 138-9]

126

127

Ultimately, centralised organisations are undemocratic

128

and, equally as important, ineffective. Hierarchical

129

organisations kill people's enthusiasm and creativity, where

130

plans and ideas are not adopted because they are the best but

131

simply because they are what a handful of leaders think

132

are best for everyone else. Really effective organisations are

133

those which make decisions based frank and open co-operation and

134

debate, where dissent is not stifled and ideas are adopted

135

because of their merit and not imposed from the top-down by a few

136

party leaders. This is why anarchists stress federalist organisation.

137

It ensures that co-ordination flows from below and there is no

138

institutionalised leadership. By organising in a way that reflects

139

the kind of society we want, we train ourselves in the skills and

140

decision making processes required to make a free and classless

141

society work. Means and ends are united and this ensures that

142

the means used will result in the desired ends. Simply put,

143

libertarian means must be used if you want libertarian ends (see

144

<a href="secH1.html#sech16">section H.1.6</a> for further

145

discussion).

146

147

In the sections that follow, we discuss the nature and role of anarchist

148

organisation. Anarchists would agree with Situationist Guy Debord that

149

a "revolutionary organisation must always remember that its objective

150

is not getting people to listen to speeches by expert leaders, but getting

151

them to speak for themselves." We organise their groups accordingly.

152

In <a href="secJ3.html#secj31">section J.3.1</a> we discuss the basic

153

building block of specifically anarchist organisations, the "affinity

154

group." Sections <a href="secJ3.html#secj32">J.3.2</a>,

155

156

and <a href="secJ3.html#secj35">J.3.5</a>, we discuss the main

157

types of federations of affinity groups anarchist create to help

158

spread our message and influence. Then

159

<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a> highlights the role

160

these organisations play in our struggles to create an anarchist society.

161

In <a href="secJ3.html#secj37">section J.3.7</a>, we analyse Bakunin's

162

unfortunate expression "Invisible Dictatorship" in order to show

163

how many Marxists distort Bakunin's ideas on this matter. Finally,

164

in sections <a href="secJ3.html#secj38">J.3.8</a> and

165

<a href="secJ3.html#secj39">J.3.9</a> we

166

discuss anarcho-syndicalism and other anarchists attitudes to it.

167

168

Anarchist organisations, therefore, aim to enrich social struggle

169

by their ideas and suggestions but also, far more importantly, enrich

170

the libertarian idea by practical experience and activity. In other words,

171

a two way process by which life informs theory and theory aids life. The

172

means by which this social dynamic is created and developed is the underlying

173

aim of anarchist organisation and is reflected in its theoretical role. The

174

power of ideas cannot be under estimated, for "if you have an idea

175

you can communicate it to a million people and lose nothing in the

176

process, and the more the idea is propagated the more it acquires in

177

power and effectiveness." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 46]

178

The right idea at the right time, one that reflects the needs of individuals

179

and of required social change, can have a transforming effect on society.

180

That is why organisations that anarchists create to spread their message

181

are so important and why we devote a whole section to them.

182

183

184

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

185

186

187

Affinity groups are the basic organisation which anarchists

188

create to spread the anarchist idea. The term "affinity group"

189

comes from the Spanish F.A.I. (Iberian Anarchist Federation)

190

and refers to the organisational form devised in their struggles for

191

freedom (from "grupo de afinidad"). At its most basic, it is

192

a (usually small) group of anarchists who work together to spread

193

their ideas to the wider public, using propaganda, initiating or

194

working with campaigns and spreading their ideas within

195

popular organisations (such as unions) and communities. It aims not

196

to be a "leadership" but to give a lead, to act as a catalyst within

197

popular movements. Unsurprisingly it reflects basic anarchist ideas:

198

199

"Autonomous, communal and directly democratic, the group combines

200

revolutionary theory with revolutionary lifestyle in its everyday

201

behaviour. It creates a free space in which revolutionaries can remake

202

themselves individually, and also as social beings." [Murray

203

Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 144]

204

</blockquote>

205

The reason for this is simple, for a "movement that sought

206

to promote a liberatory revolution had to develop liberatory

207

and revolutionary forms. This meant . . . that it had to

208

mirror the free society it was trying to achieve, not the

209

repressive one it was trying to overthrow. If a movement

210

sought to achieve a world united by solidarity and mutual aid,

211

it had to be guided by these precepts; if it sought to achieve

212

a decentralised, stateless, non-authoritarian society, it had

213

to be structured in accordance with these goals." [Bookchin,

214

The Spanish Anarchists, p. 180]

215

216

The aim of an anarchist organisation is to promote a sense of

217

community, of confidence in ones own abilities, to enable all

218

to be involved in the identification, initiation and management

219

of group needs, decisions and activities. They must ensure that

220

individuals are in a position (both physically, as part of a group,

221

and mentally, as an individual) to manage their own lives and take

222

direct action in the pursuit of individual and communal needs and

223

desires. Anarchist organisation is about empowering all, to develop

224

"integral" or whole individuals and a community that encourages

225

individuality (not abstract "individualism") and solidarity. It

226

is about collective decision making from the bottom up, that

227

empowers those at the "base" of the structure and only delegates

228

the work of co-ordinating and implementing the members decisions

229

(and not the power of making decisions for people). In this way

230

the initiative and power of the few (government) is replaced by

231

the initiative and empowerment of all (anarchy). Affinity groups

232

exist to achieve these aims and are structured to encourage them.

233

234

The local affinity group is the means by which anarchists

235

co-ordinate their activities in a community, workplace, social

236

movement and so on. Within these groups, anarchists discuss their

237

ideas, politics and hopes, what they plan to do, organise

238

propaganda work, discuss how they are going to work within

239

wider organisations like unions, how their strategies fit

240

into their long term plans and goals and so on. It is the basic

241

way that anarchists work out their ideas, pull their resources and

242

get their message across to others. There can be affinity groups

243

for different interests and activities (for example a workplace

244

affinity group, a community affinity group, an anarcha-feminist

245

affinity group, etc., could all exist within the same area, with

246

overlapping members). Moreover, as well as these more "political"

247

activities, the "affinity group" also stresses the "importance

248

of education and the need to live by Anarchist precepts -- the

249

need . . . to create a counter-society that could provide the

250

space for people to begin to remake themselves." [Bookchin,

251

Op. Cit., p. 180] In other words, "affinity groups" aim

252

to be the "living germs" of the new society in all

253

aspects, not purely in a structurally way.

254

255

So affinity groups are self-managed, autonomous groupings of anarchists

256

who unite and work on specific activities and interests. This means

257

that "[i]n an anarchist organisation the individual members can

258

express any opinion and use any tactic which is not in contradiction

259

with accepted principles and which does not harm the activities of

260

others." [Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution,

261

p. 102] Such groups are a key way for anarchists to co-ordinate their

262

activity and spread their message of individual freedom and voluntary

263

co-operation. However, the description of what an "affinity group" is

264

does not explain why anarchists organise in that way. Essentially,

265

these affinity groups are the means by which anarchists actually

266

intervene in social movements and struggles in order to win people

267

to the anarchist idea and so help transform them from struggles

268

against injustice into struggles for a free society.

269

We will discuss the role these groups play in anarchist theory in

270

<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>.

271

272

These basic affinity groups are not seen as being enough in themselves.

273

Most anarchists see the need for local groups to work together with others

274

in a confederation. Such co-operation aims to pull resources and expand

275

the options for the individuals and groups who are part of the federation.

276

As with the basic affinity group, the anarchist federation is a

277

self-managed organisation:

278

279

"Full autonomy, full independence and therefore full responsibility

280

of individuals and groups; free accord between those who believe it

281

is useful to unite in co-operating for a common aim; moral duty to

282

see through commitments undertaken and to do nothing that would

283

contradict the accepted programme. It is on these bases that the

284

practical structures, and the right tools to give life to the

285

organisation should be built and designed. Then the groups, the

286

federations of groups, the federations of federations, the meetings,

287

the congresses, the correspondence committees and so forth. But all

288

this must be done freely, in such a way that the thought and

289

initiative of individuals is not obstructed, and with the sole

290

view of giving greater effect to efforts which, in isolation,

291

would be either impossible or ineffective." [Malatesta,

292

Op. Cit., p. 101]

293

</blockquote>

294

295

To aid in this process of propaganda, agitation, political discussion

296

and development, anarchists organise federations of affinity groups.

297

These take three main forms, "synthesis" federations (see

298

<a href="secJ3.html#secj32">section J.3.2</a>), "Platformist"

299

federations (see <a href="secJ3.html#secj33">section J.3.3</a> while

300

<a href="secJ3.html#secj34">section J.3.4</a> has criticism of this

301

tendency) and "class struggle" groups (see

302

<a href="secJ3.html#secj35">section J.3.5</a>).

303

All the various types of federation are based on groups of anarchists

304

organising themselves in a libertarian fashion. This is because anarchists

305

try to live by the values of the future to the extent that this is possible

306

under capitalism and try to develop organisations based upon mutual aid,

307

in which control would be exercised from below upward, not downward from above.

308

We must also note here that these types

309

of federation are not mutually exclusive. Synthesis type federations

310

often have "class struggle" and "Platformist" groups within them

311

(although, as will become clear, Platformist federations do not

312

have synthesis groups within them) and most countries have different

313

federations representing the different perspectives within

314

the movement. Moreover, it should also be noted that no federation

315

will be a totally "pure" expression of each tendency. "Synthesis"

316

groups merge into "class struggle" ones, Platformist groups do not

317

subscribe totally to the Platform and so on. We isolate each

318

tendency to show its essential features. In real life few, if

319

any, federations will exactly fit the types we highlight. It

320

would be more precise to speak of organisations which are

321

descended from a given tendency, for example the French Anarchist

322

Federation is mostly influenced by the synthesis tradition

323

but it is not, strictly speaking, 100% synthesis. Lastly, we must

324

also note that the term "class struggle" anarchist group in no way

325

implies that "synthesis" and "Platformist" groups do not support

326

the class struggle or take part in it, they most definitely do --

327

it is simply a technical term to differentiate between types of

328

organisation!

329

330

It must be stressed anarchists do not reduce the complex issue of

331

political organisation and ideas into one organisation but

332

instead recognise that different threads within anarchism will express

333

themselves in different political organisations (and even within

334

the same organisation). A diversity of anarchist groups

335

and federations is a good sign and expresses the diversity of

336

political and individual thought to be expected in a movement

337

aiming for a society based upon freedom. All we aim to do is to

338

paint a broad picture of the similarities and differences between

339

the various perspectives on organising in the movement and indicate

340

the role these federations play in libertarian theory, namely of an

341

aid in the struggle, not a new leadership seeking power.

342

343

344

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

345

346

347

The "synthesis" federation acquired its name from the work of

348

Voline (a Russian exile) and leading French anarchist Sebastien Faure

349

in the 1920s. Voline published in 1924 a paper calling for "the

350

anarchist synthesis" and was also the author of the article

351

in Faure's Encyclopedie Anarchiste on the very same topic.

352

Its roots lie in the Russian revolution and the Nabat

353

federation created in the Ukraine during 1918 whose aim was

354

"organising all of the life forces of anarchism; bringing

355

together through a common endeavour all anarchists seriously

356

desiring of playing an active part in the social revolution

357

which is defined as a process (of greater or lesser duration)

358

giving rise to a new form of social existence for the organised

359

masses." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 117]

360

361

The "synthesis" organisation is based on uniting all kinds of anarchists

362

in one federation as there is, to use the words of the Nabat,

363

"validity in all anarchist schools of thought. We must consider

364

all diverse tendencies and accept them." The synthesis

365

organisation attempts to get different kinds of anarchists

366

"joined together on a number of basic positions and with the

367

awareness of the need for planned, organised collective effort

368

on the basis of federation." [quoted in "The Reply by

369

Several Russian Anarchists", pp. 32-6, Constructive

370

Anarchism, G. P. Maximoff (ed.), p. 32] These basic

371

positions would be based on a synthesis of the viewpoints of

372

the members of the organisation, but each tendency would be

373

free to agree their own ideas due to the federal nature of the

374

organisation.

375

376

An example of this synthesis approach is provided by the differing

377

assertions that anarchism is a theory of classes (as stated by the

378

Platform, among others), that anarchism is a humanitarian ideal

379

for all people and that anarchism is purely about individuals (and

380

so essentially individualist and having nothing to do with humanity

381

or with a class). The synthesis of these positions would be to

382

"state that anarchism contains class elements as well as humanism

383

and individualist principles . . . Its class element is above all its

384

means of fighting for liberation; its humanitarian character is its

385

ethical aspect, the foundation of society; its individualism is the

386

goal of humanity." [Op. Cit., p. 32]

387

</blockquote>

388

So, as can be seen, the "synthesis" tendency aims to unite

389

all anarchists (be they individualist, mutualist, syndicalist

390

or communist) into one common federation. Thus the "synthesis"

391

viewpoint is "inclusive" and obviously has affinities with the

392

"anarchism without adjectives" approach favoured by many

393

anarchists (see <a href="secA3.html#seca38">section A.3.8</a>).

394

However, in practice many "synthesis" organisations are more

395

restrictive (for example, they could aim to unite all social

396

anarchists) and so there can be a difference between the general

397

idea of the synthesis and how it is concretely applied.

398

399

The basic idea behind the synthesis is that the anarchist

400

movement (in most countries, at most times, including France

401

in the 1920s and Russia during the revolution and at this

402

time) is divided into three main tendencies: communist

403

anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and individualist anarchism.

404

This division can cause severe damage to the movement simply

405

because of the many (and often redundant) arguments and diatribes

406

on why "my anarchism is best" can get in the way of working in

407

common in order to fight our common enemies (state, capitalism

408

and authority). The "synthesis" federations are defined by agreeing

409

what is the common denominator of the various tendencies within

410

anarchism and agreeing a minimum programme based on this

411

for the federation. This would allow a "certain ideological

412

and tactical unity among organisations" within the "synthesis"

413

federation. [Op. Cit., p. 35] Moreover, as well as saving

414

time and energy for more important tasks, there are technical and

415

efficiency reasons for unifying into one organisation, namely

416

allowing the movement to have access to more resources and being

417

able to co-ordinate them so as to maximise their use and impact.

418

419

The "synthesis" federation, like all anarchist groups, aims to

420

spread anarchist ideas within society as a whole. They believe

421

that their role is to "assist the masses only when they need

422

such assistance . . . the anarchists are part of the membership

423

in the economic and social mass organisations [such as trade unions].

424

They act and build as part of the whole. An immense field of action

425

is opened to them for ideological [sic!], social and creative

426

activity without assuming a position of superiority over the

427

masses. Above all they must fulfil their ideological and

428

ethical influence in a free and natural manner . . . [they]

429

offer ideological assistance, but not in the role of leaders."

430

[Op. Cit., p. 33] This, as we shall see in

431

<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>, is the

432

common anarchist position as regards the role of an anarchist

433

group.

434

435

The great strength of "synthesis" federations, obviously, is that

436

they allow a wide and diverse range of viewpoints to be expressed

437

within the organisation which can allow the development of

438

political ideas and theories by constant discussion and debate.

439

They allow the maximum amount of resources to be

440

made available to individuals and groups within the organisation

441

by increasing the number of members. This is why we find the original

442

promoters of the "synthesis" arguing that "that first step toward

443

achieving unity in the anarchist movement which can lead to serious

444

organisation is collective ideological work on a series of important

445

problems that seek the clearest possible collective solution,"

446

discussing "concrete questions" rather than "philosophical

447

problems and abstract dissertations" and "suggest that there

448

be a publication for discussion in every country where the problems

449

in our ideology [sic!] and tactics can be fully discussed, regardless

450

of how 'acute' or even 'taboo' it may be. The need for such a printed

451

organ, as well as oral discussion, seems to us to be a 'must' because

452

it is the practical way to try to achieve 'ideological unity',

453

'tactical unity', and possibly organisation . . . A full and

454

tolerant discussion of our problems . . . will create a basis for

455

understanding, not only among anarchists, but among different

456

conceptions of anarchism." [Op. Cit., p. 35]

457

458

The "synthesis" idea for anarchist organisation was taken up by those

459

who opposed the Platform (see <a href="secJ3.html#secj33">next section</a>).

460

For both Faure and Voline, the basic idea was the same, namely

461

that the various tendencies in anarchism must co-operate

462

and work in the same organisation. However, there are differences

463

between Voline's and Faure's points of view. The latter saw these

464

various tendencies as a wealth in themselves and advocated that

465

each tendency would gain from working together in a common

466

organisation. From Voline's point of view, the emergence of these

467

various tendencies was historically needed to discover the in-depth

468

implications of anarchism in various settings (such as the economical,

469

the social and individual life). However, it was the time to go back to

470

anarchism as a whole, an anarchism considerably empowered by what

471

each tendency could give it, and in which tendencies as such should

472

dissolve. Moreover, these tendencies co-existed in every anarchist

473

at various levels, so all anarchists should aggregate in an organisation

474

where these tendencies would disappear (both individually and

475

organisationally, i.e. there would not be an "anarcho-syndicalist"

476

specific tendency inside the organisation, and so forth).

477

478

The "synthesis" federation would be based on complete autonomy

479

(within the basic principles of the Federation and Congress decisions,

480

of course) for groups and individuals, so allowing all the different

481

trends to work together and express their differences in a common

482

front. The various groups would be organised in a federal structure,

483

combining to share resources in the struggle against state, capitalism

484

and other forms of oppression. This federal structure is organised

485

at the local level through a "local union" (i.e. the groups in a town or

486

city), at the regional level (i.e. all groups in, say, Strathclyde are

487

members of the same regional union) up to the "national" level (i.e.

488

all groups in Scotland, say) and beyond.

489

490

As every group in the federation is autonomous, it can discuss, plan

491

and initiate an action (such as campaign for a reform, against a

492

social evil, and so on) without having to wait for others in the federation

493

(or have to wait for instructions). This means that the local groups

494

can respond quickly to issues and developments. This does not mean that

495

each group works in isolation. These initiatives may gain federal support

496

if local groups see the need. The federation can adopt an issue if

497

it is raised at a federal conference and other groups agree to

498

co-operate on that issue. Moreover, each group has the freedom

499

not to participate on a specific issue while leaving others to do

500

so. Thus groups can concentrate on what they are interested in most.

501

502

The programme and policies of the federation would be agreed at

503

regular delegate meetings and congresses. The "synthesis" federation

504

is managed at the federal level by "relations committees" made up

505

of people elected and mandated at the federation congresses. These

506

committees would have a purely administrative role, spreading

507

information, suggestions and proposals coming from groups and

508

individuals within the organisation, looking after the finances

509

of the federation and so on. They do not have any more rights

510

than any other member of the federation (i.e. they could not

511

make a proposal as a committee, just as members of their local

512

group or as individuals). These administrative committees are

513

accountable to the federation and subject to both mandates and

514

recall.

515

516

Most national sections of the International Anarchist Federation (IFA)

517

are good examples of successful federations which are heavily influenced by

518

"synthesis" ideas (such as the French and Italian federations). Obviously,

519

though, how effective a "synthesis" federation is depends upon how tolerant

520

members are of each other and how seriously they take their responsibilities

521

towards their federations and the agreements they make.

522

523

Of course, there are problems with most forms of organisation,

524

and the "synthesis" federation is no exception. While diversity can

525

strengthen an organisation by provoking debate, a too diverse grouping

526

can often make it difficult to get things done. Platformist and other

527

critics of the "synthesis" federation argue that it can be turned

528

into a talking shop and any common programme difficult to agree,

529

never mind apply. For example, how can mutualists and communists

530

agree on the ends, never mind the means, their organisation supports?

531

One believes in co-operation within a (modified) market system and

532

reforming capitalism away, while the other believes in the abolition

533

of commodity production and money, seeing revolution as the means of so

534

doing. Ultimately, all they could do would be to agree to disagree and

535

thus any joint programmes and activity would be somewhat limited. It

536

could, indeed, be argued that both Voline and Faure forgot essential

537

points, namely what is this common denominator between the different

538

kinds of anarchism, how do we achieve it and what is in it? For without

539

this agreed common position, many synthesist organisations do end

540

up becoming little more than talking shops, escaping from any

541

social or organisational perspective. This seems to have been

542

the fate of many groups in Britain and America during the 1960s

543

and 1970s, for example.

544

545

It is this (potential) disunity that lead the authors of

546

the Platform to argue that "[s]uch an organisation having

547

incorporated heterogeneous theoretical and practical elements,

548

would only be a mechanical assembly of individuals each having

549

a different conception of all the questions of the anarchist

550

movement, an assembly which would inevitably disintegrate on

551

encountering reality." [The Organisational Platform of the

552

Libertarian Communists, p. 12] The Platform suggested

553

"Theoretical and Tactical Unity" as a means of overcoming

554

this problem, but that term provoked massive disagreement

555

in anarchist circles (see

556

<a href="secJ3.html#secj34">section J.3.4</a>).

557

In reply to the

558

Platform, supporters of the "synthesis" counter by

559

pointing to the fact that "Platformist" groups are usually

560

very small, far smaller that "synthesis" federations (for

561

example, compare the size of the French Anarchist Federation

562

with, say, the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement or

563

the French-language Alternative Libertaire). This means, they argue,

564

that the Platform does not, in fact, lead to a more effective

565

organisation, regardless of the claims of its supporters.

566

Moreover, they argue that the requirements for "Theoretical

567

and Tactical Unity" help ensure a small organisation as

568

differences would express themselves in splits rather than

569

constructive activity. Needless to say, the discussion

570

continues within the movement on this issue!

571

572

What can be said is that this potential problem within

573

"synthesisism" has been the cause of some organisations

574

failing or becoming little more than talking shops, with

575

each group doing its own thing and so making co-ordination

576

pointless as any agreements made would be ignored. Most supporters

577

of the synthesis would argue that this is not what the theory

578

aims for and that the problem lies in misunderstanding it

579

rather than in the theory itself (as can be seen from mainland

580

European, "synthesis" inspired federations can be very

581

successful). Non-supporters are more critical, with some

582

supporting the "Platform" as a more effective means of

583

organising to spread anarchist ideas and influence (see

584

the <a href="secJ3.html#secj33">next section</a>).

585

Other social anarchists create the

586

"class struggle" type of federation (this is a common

587

organisational form in Britain, for example) as discussed

588

in <a href="secJ3.html#secj35">section J.3.5</a>.

589

590

591

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

592

593

594

The Platform is a current within anarcho-communism which has specific

595

suggestions on the nature and form which an anarchist federation should

596

take. Its roots lie in the Russian anarchist movement, a section of

597

which, in 1926, published "The Organisational Platform of the

598

Libertarian Communists" when in exile from the Bolshevik

599

dictatorship. The authors of the work included Nestor Makhno, Peter

600

Arshinov and Ida Mett. At the time it provoked intense debate (and

601

still does in many anarchist circles) between supporters of the

602

Platform (usually called "Platformists") and those who oppose it

603

(which includes other communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and

604

supporters of the "synthesis"). We will discuss why many anarchists

605

oppose the Platform in the <a href="secJ3.html#secj34">next section</a>.

606

Here we discuss what the Platform argued for.

607

608

Like the "synthesis" federation (see

609

<a href="secJ3.html#secj32">last section</a>), the Platform

610

was created in response to the experiences of the Russian Revolution.

611

The authors of the Platform (like Voline and other supporters of the

612

"synthesis") had participated in that Revolution and saw all their

613

work, hopes and dreams fail as the Bolshevik state triumphed and

614

destroyed any chances of socialism by undermining soviet democracy,

615

workers' self-management of production, trade union democracy as

616

well as fundamental individual freedoms and rights (see the

617

<a href="secH6.html">section H.6</a> for details). Moreover, the

618

authors of the Platform had been leading activists in the Makhnovist

619

movement in the Ukraine which had successfully resisted both White

620

and Red armies in the name of working class self-determination and

621

anarchism (see the appendix

622

<a href="append46.html">"Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism? "</a>).

623

Facing the same

624

problems of the Bolshevik government, the Makhnovists had actively

625

encouraged popular self-management and organisation, freedom of

626

speech and of association, and so on, whereas the Bolsheviks had

627

not. Thus they were aware that anarchist ideas not only worked

628

in practice, but that the claims of Leninists who maintained

629

that Bolshevism (and the policies it introduced at the time)

630

was the only "practical" response to the problems facing a

631

revolution were false.

632

633

They wrote the pamphlet in order to examine why the anarchist movement

634

had failed to build on its successes in gaining influence within the

635

working class. As can be seen from libertarian participation in the

636

factory committee movement, where workers organised self-management

637

in their workplaces and anarchist ideas had proven to be both popular

638

and practical. While repression by the Bolsheviks did play a part

639

in this failure, it did not explain everything. Also important, in

640

the eyes of the Platform authors, was the lack of anarchist organisation

641

before the

642

revolution:

643

644

"It is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably

645

positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the facing up to

646

the social revolution, and finally the heroism and innumerable sacrifices

647

borne by the anarchists in the struggle for anarchist communism, the

648

anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and has appeared,

649

very often, in the history of working class struggles as a small event, an

650

episode, and not an important factor." [Organisational Platform of the

651

Libertarian Communists, p. 11]

652

</blockquote>

653

This weakness in the movement derived, they argued, from a number of

654

causes, the main one being "the absence of organisational principles

655

and practices" within the anarchist movement. This resulted in an

656

anarchist movement "represented by several local organisations

657

advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives

658

for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually

659

disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them." This

660

explained the "contradiction between the positive and incontestable

661

substance of libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in which the

662

anarchist movement vegetates." [Op. Cit., p. 11] For anyone

663

familiar with the anarchist movement in many countries, these words will

664

still strike home. Thus the Platform still appears to many anarchists a

665

relevant and important document, even if they are not Platformists.

666

667

The author's of the Platform proposed a solution to this problem, namely

668

the creation of a new type of anarchist organisation. This organisation

669

would be based upon communist-anarchist ideas exclusively, while

670

recognising syndicalism as a principal method of struggle. Like most

671

anarchists, the Platform placed class and class struggle as the centre

672

of their analysis, recognising that the "social and political regime of

673

all states is above all the product of class struggle . . . The slightest

674

change in the course of the battle of classes, in the relative locations

675

of the forces of the class struggle, produces continuous modifications

676

in the fabric and structure of society." Again, like most anarchists,

677

the Platform aimed to "transform the present bourgeois capitalist

678

society into a society which assures the workers the products of the

679

labours, their liberty, independence, and social and political equality",

680

one based on a "workers organisations of production and consumption,

681

united federatively and self-administering." The "birth, the

682

blossoming, and the realisation of anarchist ideas have their roots

683

in the life and the struggle of the working masses and are inseparable

684

bound to their fate." [Op. Cit., p. 14, p. 15, p. 19 and p. 15]

685

Again, most anarchists (particularly social anarchists) would agree --

686

anarchist ideas will (and have) wither when isolated from working class

687

life since only working class people, the vast majority, can create a

688

free society and anarchist ideas are expressions of working class

689

experience (remove the experience and the ideas do not develop as

690

they should).

691

692

In order to create such a free society it is necessary, argue the

693

Platformists, "to work in two directions: on the one hand towards

694

the selection and grouping of revolutionary worker and peasant

695

forces on a libertarian communist theoretical basis (a specifically

696

libertarian communist organisation); on the other hand, towards

697

regrouping revolutionary workers and peasants on an economic base

698

of production and consumption (revolutionary workers and peasants

699

organised around production [i.e. syndicalism]; workers and free

700

peasants co-operatives)." Again, most anarchists would agree

701

with this along with the argument that "anarchism should become

702

the leading concept of revolution . . . The leading position of

703

anarchist ideas in the revolution suggests an orientation of events

704

after anarchist theory. However, this theoretical driving force

705

should not be confused with the political leadership of the statist

706

parties which leads finally to State Power." [Op. Cit.,

707

p. 20 and p. 21]

708

709

This "leadership of ideas" (as it has come to be known)

710

would aim at developing and co-ordinating libertarian feelings

711

already existing within social struggle. "Although the masses,"

712

explained the Platform, "express themselves profoundly in social

713

movements in terms of anarchist tendencies and tenets, these . . .

714

do however remain dispersed, being uncoordinated, and consequently

715

do not lead to the . . . preserving [of] the anarchist orientation

716

of the social revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 21] The Platform

717

argued that a specific anarchist organisation was required to ensure

718

that the libertarian tendencies initially expressed in any social

719

revolution or movement (for example, free federation, self-management

720

in mass assemblies, mandating of delegates, decentralisation, etc.)

721

do not get undermined by statists and authoritarians who have their

722

own agendas. This would be done by actively working in mass organisation

723

and winning people to libertarian ideas and practices by argument

724

(see <a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>).

725

726

However, these principles do not, in themselves, determine a Platformist

727

organisation. After all, most anarcho-syndicalists and non-Platformist

728

communist-anarchists would agree with these positions. The main point

729

which distinguishes the Platform is its position on how an anarchist

730

organisation should be structured and work. This is sketched in the

731

"Organisational Section," the shortest and most contentious part

732

of the whole work. They called this the General Union of Anarchists

733

and where they introduced the concepts of "Theoretical and Tactical

734

Unity" and "Collective Responsibility," concepts

735

which are unique to the Platform. Even today within the anarchist movement

736

these are contentious ideas so it is worth exploring them in a little

737

more detail.

738

739

By "Theoretical Unity" the Platform meant any anarchist organisation

740

must come to an agreement on the theory upon which it is based. In

741

other words, that members of the organisation must agree on a certain

742

number of basic points, such as class struggle, social revolution and

743

libertarian communism, and so on. An organisation in which half the

744

members thought that union struggles were important and the other half

745

that they were a waste of time would not be effective as the membership

746

would spend all their time arguing with themselves. While most

747

Platformists admit that everyone will not agree on everything,

748

they think it is important to reach as much agreement as possible,

749

and to translate this into action. Once a theoretical position is

750

reached, the members have to argue it in public (even if they

751

initially opposed it within the organisation but they do have

752

the right to get the decision of the organisation changed by

753

internal discussion). Which brings us to "Tactical Unity" by

754

which the Platform meant that the members of an organisation should

755

struggle together as an organised force rather than as individuals.

756

Once a strategy has been agreed by the Union, all members would work

757

towards ensuring its success (even if they initially opposed it).

758

In this way resources and time are concentrated in a common

759

direction, towards an agreed objective.

760

761

Thus "Theoretical and Tactical Unity" means an anarchist organisation

762

that agrees specific ideas and the means of applying them. The

763

Platform's basic assumption is that there is a link between coherency

764

and efficiency. By increasing the coherency of the organisation by

765

making collective decisions and applying them, the Platform argues

766

that this will increase the influence of anarchist ideas. Without this,

767

they argue, more organised groups (such as Leninist ones) would

768

be in a better position to have their arguments heard and listened to

769

than anarchists would. Anarchists cannot be complacent, and rely on

770

the hope that the obvious strength and rightness of our ideas will shine

771

through and win the day. As history shows, this rarely happens and

772

when it does, the authoritarians are usually in positions of power to

773

crush the emerging anarchist influence (this was the case in Russia,

774

for example). Platformists argue that the world we live in is the

775

product of struggles between competing ideas of how society should

776

be organised and if the anarchist voice is weak, quiet and disorganised

777

it will not be heard and other arguments, other perspectives, will win

778

the day.

779

780

Which brings us to "Collective Responsibility," which the Platform

781

defines as "the entire Union will be responsible for the political

782

and revolutionary activity of each member; in the same way, each

783

member will be responsible for the political and revolutionary

784

activity of the Union." In short, that each member should support

785

the decisions made by the organisation and that each member should

786

take part in the process of collective decision making process.

787

Without this, argue Platformists, any decisions made will be paper

788

ones as individuals and groups would ignore the agreements made by

789

the federation (the Platform calls this "the tactic of irresponsible

790

individualism"). [Op. Cit., p. 32] With "Collective

791

Responsibility," the strength of all the individuals that make

792

up the group is magnified and collectively applied.

793

794

The last principle in the "Organisational Section" of the Platform

795

is "Federalism," which it defined as "the free agreement of

796

individuals and organisations to work collectively towards a common

797

objective" and which "reconciles the independence and

798

initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the

799

common cause." However, the Platform argued that this principle

800

has been "deformed" within the movement to mean the "right"

801

to "manifest one's 'ego,' without obligation to account for duties as

802

regards the organisation" one is a member of. In order to overcome this

803

problem, they stress that "the federalist type of anarchist organisation,

804

while recognising each member's rights to independence, free opinion,

805

individual liberty and initiative, requires each member to undertake

806

fixed organisation duties, and demands execution of communal

807

decisions." [Op. Cit., p. 33 and pp. 33-4]

808

809

As part of their solution to the problem of anarchist organisation,

810

the Platform suggested that each group would have "its secretariat,

811

executing and guiding theoretically the political and technical

812

work of the organisation." Moreover, the Platform urged the

813

creation of an "executive committee of the Union"

814

which would "be in charge" of "the execution of

815

decisions taken by the Union with which it is

816

entrusted; the theoretical and organisational orientation of the

817

activity of isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical

818

positions and the general tactical lines of the Union; the monitoring

819

of the general state of the movement; the maintenance of working and

820

organisational links between all the organisations in the Union; and

821

with other organisation." The rights, responsibilities and practical

822

tasks of the executive committee are fixed by the congress of the

823

Union. [Op. Cit., p. 34]

824

825

This suggestion, unsurprisingly, meet with strong disapproval by most

826

anarchists, as we will see in the

827

<a href="secJ3.html#secj34">next section</a>,

828

who argued that this would turn the anarchist movement into a

829

centralised, hierarchical party similar to the Bolsheviks. Needless

830

to say, supporters of the Platform reject this argument and point

831

out that the Platform itself is not written in stone and needs to

832

be discussed fully and modified as required. In fact, few, if any,

833

Platformist groups, do have this "secretariat" structure (it

834

could, in fact, be argued that there are no actual "Platformist"

835

groups, rather groups influenced by the Platform, namely on the issues

836

of "Theoretical and Tactical Unity" and "Collective

837

Responsibility").

838

839

Similarly, most modern day Platformists reject the idea of gathering

840

all anarchists into one organisation. The original Platform seemed

841

to imply that the General Union would be an umbrella organisation,

842

made up of different groups and individuals. Most Platformists would

843

argue that not only will there never be one organisation which

844

encompasses everyone, they do not think it necessary. Instead they

845

envisage the existence of a number of organisations, each internally

846

unified, each co-operating with each other where possible, a much

847

more amorphous and fluid entity than a General Union of Anarchists.

848

849

As well as the original Platform, most Platformists place the

850

Manifesto of Libertarian Communism by Georges Fontenis and

851

Towards a Fresh Revolution by the "Friends of Durruti"

852

as landmark texts in the Platformist tradition. A few anarcho-syndicalists

853

question this last claim, arguing that the "Friends of Durruti"

854

manifesto has strong similarities with the CNT's pre-1936 position

855

on revolution and thus is an anarcho-syndicalist document, going

856

back to the position the CNT ignored after July 19th, 1936.

857

Alexandre Skirda's book Facing the Enemy contains the key

858

documents on the original Platformists (including the original

859

draft Platform, supplementary documents clarifying issues and

860

polemics against critiques). There are numerous Platformist and

861

Platformist influenced organisations in the world today, such as

862

the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement and Italian Federation

863

of Anarchist Communists.

864

865

In the <a href="secJ3.html#secj34">next section</a>

866

we discuss the objections that most anarchists

867

have towards the Platform.

868

869

870

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

871

872

873

When the "Platform" was published it provoked a massive amount of debate

874

and comment, the majority of it critical. Most of famous anarchists

875

rejected the Platform. Indeed, only Nestor Makhno (who co-authored the

876

work) supported its proposals, with (among others) Alexander Berkman,

877

Emma Goldman, Voline, G.P. Maximoff, Luigi Fabbri, Camilo Berneri and

878

Errico Malatesta rejecting its suggestions on how anarchists should

879

organise. Some argued that the Platform was trying to "Bolshevise"

880

anarchism (""They are only one step away from bolshevism."

881

["The Reply by Several Russian Anarchists", pp. 32-6,

882

Constructive Anarchism, G.P. Maximoff (ed.), pp. 36]). Others, such

883

as Malatesta, suggested that the authors were too impressed by the

884

apparent "success" of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Since then, it has

885

continued to provoke a lot of debate in anarchist circles. So why do

886

so many anarchists oppose the Platform?

887

888

While many of the anti-Platformists made points about most parts of the

889

Platform (both Maximoff and Voline pointed out that while the Platform

890

denied the need of a "Transitional Period" in theory, it accepted

891

it in practice, for example) the main bone of contention was found in the

892

"Organisational Section" with its call for "Tactical and Theoretical

893

Unity," "Collective Responsibility" and group and executive

894

"secretariats" guiding the organisation. Here most anarchists found

895

ideas they considered incompatible with libertarian ideas. We will concentrate

896

on this issue as it is usually considered as the most important.

897

898

Today, in some quarters of the libertarian movement, the Platformists are

899

often dismissed as "would-be leaders." Yet this was not where Malatesta

900

and other critics of the Platform took issue. Malatesta and Maximoff both

901

argued that, to use Maximoff's words, anarchists should "go into the

902

masses. . . , work[ing] with them, struggle for their soul, and attempt to

903

win it ideologically [sic!] and give it guidance." So the

904

question was "not the rejection of leadership, but making

905

certain it is free and natural." [Constructive

906

Anarchism, p. 19] Moreover, as Maximoff noted, the "synthesis"

907

anarchists came to the same conclusion. Thus all sides of the debate

908

accepted that anarchists should take the lead. The question, as

909

Malatesta and the others saw it, was not whether to lead, but rather

910

how you should lead - a fairly important distinction.

911

912

Malatesta posed two alternatives, either you "provide leadership by

913

advice and example leaving people themselves to . . . adopt our methods

914

and solutions if these are, or seem to be, better than those suggested

915

and carried out by others" or you can "direct by taking over

916

command, that is by becoming a government." He asked the Platformists:

917

"In which manner do you wish to direct?" While he thought, from

918

his knowledge of Makhno and his work, that the answer would be the first

919

option, he was "assailed by doubt that [Makhno] would also like to see,

920

within the general movement, a central body that would, in an authoritarian

921

manner, dictate the theoretical and practical programme for the revolution."

922

This was because of the "Executive Committee" in the Platform which

923

would "give ideological and organisational direction to the association."

924

[The Anarchist Revolution, p. 108 and p. 110]

925

926

Maximoff made the same point, arguing that the Platform implied that

927

anarchists in the unions are responsible to the anarchist federation,

928

not to the union assemblies that elected them. As he put it,

929

according to the Platform anarchists "are to join the Trades Unions

930

with ready-made recipes and are to carry out their plans, if necessary,

931

against the will of the Unions themselves." This was just one

932

example of a general problem, namely that the Platform "places

933

its Party on the same height as the Bolsheviks do, i.e., it places

934

the interests of the Party above the interests of the masses since

935

the Party has the monopoly of understanding these interests."

936

[Constructive Anarchism, p. 19 and p. 18] This flowed from

937

the Platform arguing that anarchists must "enter into revolutionary

938

trade unions as an organised force, responsible to accomplish work

939

in the union before the general anarchist organisation and

940

orientated by the latter." However, Maximoff's argument may be

941

considered harsh as the Platform also argued that anarchism "aspires

942

neither to political power nor dictatorship" and so they would hardly

943

be urging the opposite principles within the trade union movement. [The

944

Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, p. 25 and p. 21]

945

If we take the Platform's comments within a context informed by the

946

"leadership of ideas" concept (see

947

<a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>) then what they meant

948

was simply that the anarchist group would convince the union members

949

of the validity of their ideas by argument which was something Maximoff

950

did not disagree with. In short, the disagreement

951

becomes one of unclear (or bad) use of language by the Platform's

952

authors.

953

954

Despite many efforts and many letters on the subject (in particular

955

between Malatesta and Makhno) the question of "leadership" could

956

not be clarified to either side's satisfaction, in part because there

957

was an additional issue in dispute. This was the related issue of

958

organisational principles (which in themselves make up the defining

959

part of the original Platform). Malatesta argued that this did not conform

960

with anarchist methods and principles, and so could not "help bring

961

about the triumph of anarchism." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 97]

962

This was because of two main reasons, the first being the issue of the

963

Platform's "secretariats" and "executive committee" and the issue of

964

"Collective Responsibility." We will take each in turn.

965

966

With an structure based round "secretariats" and "executive committees"

967

the "will of the [General] Union [of Anarchists] can only mean the will

968

of the majority, expressed through congresses which nominate and

969

control the Executive Committee and decide on all important issues.

970

Naturally, the congresses would consist of representatives elected by

971

the majority of member groups . . . So, in the best of cases, the

972

decisions would be taken by a majority of a majority, and this could

973

easily, especially when the opposing opinions are more than two,

974

represent only a minority." This, Malatesta argued, "comes down

975

to a pure majority system, to pure parliamentarianism" and so

976

non-anarchist in nature. [Op. Cit., p. 100]

977

978

As long as a Platformist federation is based on "secretariats"

979

and "executive committees" directing the activity and development

980

of the organisation, this critique is valid. In such a system, as

981

these bodies control the organisation and members are expected to

982

follow their decisions (due to "theoretical and tactical unity"

983

and "collective responsibility") they are, in effect, the

984

government of the association. While this government may be

985

elected and accountable, it is still a government simply because

986

these bodies have executive power. As Maximoff argued, individual

987

initiative in the Platform "has a special character . . . Each

988

organisation (i.e. association of members with the right to individual

989

initiative) has its secretariat which . . . directs the ideological,

990

political and technical activities of the organisation . . . In what,

991

then, consists the self-reliant activities of the rank-and-file members?

992

Apparently in one thing: initiative to obey the secretariat and carry

993

out its directives." [Op. Cit., p. 18] This seems to be the

994

logical conclusion of the structure suggested by the Platform. "The

995

spirit," argued Malatesta, "the tendency remains authoritarian

996

and the educational effect would remain anti-anarchist."

997

[Op. Cit., p. 98]

998

999

Malatesta, in contrast, argued that an anarchist organisation must be

1000

based on the "[f]ull autonomy, full independence and therefore the

1001

full responsibility of individuals and groups" with all organisational

1002

work done "freely, in such a way that the thought and initiative of

1003

individuals is not obstructed." The individual members of such an

1004

organisation "express any opinion and use any tactic which is not

1005

in contradiction with accepted principles and which does not harm

1006

the activities of others." Moreover, the administrative bodies such

1007

organisations nominate would "have no executive powers, have no

1008

directive powers" leaving it up to the groups and their federal

1009

meetings to decide their own fates. The congresses of such organisations

1010

would be "free from any kind of authoritarianism, because they do not

1011

lay down the law; they do not impose their own resolutions on others . . .

1012

and do not become binding and enforceable except on those who accept them."

1013

[Op. Cit., p. 101, p. 102 and p. 101] Such an organisation does not

1014

exclude collective decisions and self-assumed obligations, rather

1015

it is based upon them.

1016

1017

Most groups inspired by the Platform, however, seem to reject this

1018

aspect of its organisational suggestions. Instead of "secretariats" and

1019

"executive committees" they have regular conferences and meetings

1020

to reach collective decisions on issues and practice unity that way.

1021

Thus the really important issue is of "theoretical and tactical

1022

unity" and "collective responsibility," rather than ithe

1023

structure suggested by the Platform. Indeed, this issue was the main

1024

topic in Makhno's letter to Malatesta, for example, and so we would be

1025

justified in saying that this is the key issue dividing "Platformists"

1026

from other anarchists.

1027

1028

So in what way did Malatesta disagree with this concept? As we

1029

mentioned in the <a href="secJ3.html#secj33">last section</a>, the

1030

Platform defined the idea of

1031

"Collective Responsibility" as "the entire Union will be responsible

1032

for the political and revolutionary activity of each member; in the

1033

same way, each member will be responsible for the political and

1034

revolutionary activity of the Union." To which Malatesta replied:

1035

1036

"But if the Union is responsible for what each member does, how

1037

can it leave to its members and to the various groups the freedom

1038

to apply the common programme in the way they think best? How can

1039

one be responsible for an action if it does not have the means to

1040

prevent it? Therefore, the Union and in its name the Executive

1041

Committee, would need to monitor the action of the individual

1042

member and order them what to do and what not to do; and since

1043

disapproval after the event cannot put right a previously accepted

1044

responsibility, no-one would be able to do anything at all before

1045

having obtained the go-ahead, the permission of the committee.

1046

And, on the other hand, can an individual accept responsibility

1047

for the actions of a collectivity before knowing what it will do

1048

and if he cannot prevent it doing what he disapproves of?" [Op.

1049

Cit., p. 99]

1050

</blockquote>

1051

In other words, the term "collective responsibility" (if taken

1052

literally) implies a highly inefficient and somewhat authoritarian

1053

mode of organisation. Before any action could be undertaken, the

1054

organisation would have to be consulted and this would crush

1055

individual, group and local initiative. The organisation would

1056

respond slowly to developing situations, if at all, and this response

1057

would not be informed by first hand knowledge and experience.

1058

Moreover, this form of organisation implies a surrendering of

1059

individual judgement, as members would have to "submit to the

1060

decisions of the majority before they have even heard what those

1061

might be." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., 101] In the end, all a

1062

member could do would be to leave the organisation if they disagree

1063

with a tactic or position and could not bring themselves to further

1064

it by their actions.

1065

1066

This structure also suggests that the Platform's commitment to

1067

federalism is in words only. As most anarchists critical of the

1068

Platform argued, while its authors affirm federalist principles

1069

they, in fact, "outline a perfectly centralised organisation with

1070

an Executive Committee that has responsibility to give ideological

1071

and organisational direction to the different anarchist organisations,

1072

which in turn will direct the professional organisations of the

1073

workers." ["The Reply by Several Russian Anarchists",

1074

Op. Cit., pp. 35-6]

1075

1076

Thus it is likely that "Collective Responsibility" taken to its logical

1077

conclusion would actually hinder anarchist work by being too

1078

bureaucratic and slow. However, let us assume that by applying collective

1079

responsibility as well as tactical and theoretical unity, anarchist

1080

resources and time will be more efficiently utilised. What is the point

1081

of being "efficient" if the collective decision reached is wrong or is

1082

inapplicable to many areas? Rather than local groups applying their

1083

knowledge of local conditions and developing theories and policies that

1084

reflect these conditions (and co-operating from the bottom up), they may

1085

be forced to apply inappropriate policies due to the "Unity" of the

1086

Platformist organisation. It is true that Makhno argued that the

1087

"activities of local organisations can be adapted, as far as possible,

1088

to suit local conditions" but only if they are "consonant with the

1089

pattern of the overall organisational practice of the Union of

1090

anarchists covering the whole country." [The Struggle Against

1091

the State and Other Essays, p. 62] Which still begs the question

1092

on the nature of the Platform's unity (however, it does suggest

1093

that the Platform's position may be less extreme than might be

1094

implied by the text, as we will discuss). That is why anarchists have

1095

traditionally supported federalism and free agreement within their

1096

organisations, to take into account the real needs of localities.

1097

1098

If we do not take the Platform's definition of "Collective

1099

Responsibility" literally or to its logical extreme (as Makhno's

1100

comments suggest) then the differences between Platformists

1101

and non-Platformists may not be that far. As Malatesta pointed

1102

out in his reply to Makhno's letter:

1103

1104

"I accept and support the view that anyone who associates and

1105

co-operates with others for a common purpose must feel the need

1106

to co-ordinate his [or her] actions with those of his [or her]

1107

fellow members and do nothing that harms the work of others . . .

1108

and respect the agreements that have been made . . . [Moreover] I

1109

maintain that those who do not feel and do not practice that

1110

duty should be thrown out of the association.

1111

1112

"Perhaps, speaking of collective responsibility, you mean precisely

1113

that accord and solidarity that must exist among members of an

1114

association. And if that is so, your expression amounts . . . to

1115

an incorrect use of language, but basically it would only be an

1116

unimportant question of wording and agreement would soon be

1117

reached." [Op. Cit., pp. 107-8]

1118

</blockquote>

1119

This, indeed, seems to be the way that most Platformist organisations

1120

do operate. They have agreed broad theoretical and tactical positions

1121

on various subjects (such as, for example, the nature of trade unions

1122

and how anarchists relate to them) while leaving it to local groups

1123

to act within these guidelines. Moreover, the local groups do not

1124

have to report to the organisation before embarking on an activity.

1125

In other words, most Platformist groups do not take the Platform

1126

literally and so many differences are, to a large degree, a question

1127

of wording. As two supporters of the Platform note:

1128

1129

"The Platform doesn't go into detail about how collective

1130

responsibility works in practice. There are issues it leaves

1131

untouched such as the question of people who oppose the majority

1132

view. We would argue that obviously people who oppose the view of

1133

the majority have a right to express their own views, however in

1134

doing so they must make clear that they don't represent the view

1135

of the organisation. If a group of people within the organisation

1136

oppose the majority decision they have the right to organise

1137

and distribute information so that their arguments can be heard

1138

within the organisation as a whole. Part of our anarchism is the

1139

belief that debate and disagreement, freedom and openness strengthens

1140

both the individual and the group to which she or he belongs."

1141

[Aileen O'Carroll and Alan MacSimoin, "The Platform", pp. 29-31,

1142

Red and Black Revolution, no. 4, p. 30]

1143

</blockquote>

1144

1145

While many anarchists are critical of Platformist groups for being

1146

too centralised for their liking, it is the case that the Platform has

1147

influenced many anarchist organisations, even non-Platformist ones

1148

(this can be seen in the "class struggle" groups discussed in the

1149

<a href="secJ3.html#secj35">next section</a>).

1150

This influence has been both ways, with the criticism the

1151

original Platform was subjected to having had an effect on how

1152

Platformist groups have developed. This, of course, does not imply

1153

that there is little or no difference between Platformists and other

1154

anarchists. Platformist groups tend to stress "collective responsibility"

1155

and "theoretical and tactical unity" more than others, which has

1156

caused problems when Platformists have worked within "synthesis"

1157

organisations (as was the case in France, for example, which resulted

1158

in much bad-feeling between Platformists and others).

1159

1160

Constructive Anarchism by the leading Russian anarcho-syndicalist

1161

G.P. Maximoff gathers all the relevant documents in one place. As well

1162

as Maximoff's critique of the Platform, it includes the "synthesis"

1163

reply, Malatesta's review and subssequent exchange of letters between him

1164

and Makhno. The Anarchist Revolution also contains Malatesta's

1165

article and the exchange of letters between him and Makhno.

1166

1167

1168

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

1169

1170

1171

Yes. Another type of anarchist federation is what we term the "class

1172

struggle" group. Many local anarchist groups in Britain, for

1173

example, organise in this fashion. They use the term "class struggle"

1174

to indicate that their anarchism is based on collective working class

1175

resistance as opposed to reforming capitalism via lifestyle changes and

1176

the support of, say, co-operatives (many "class struggle" anarchists do

1177

these things, of course, but they are aware that they cannot create an

1178

anarchist society by so doing). We follow this use of the term here. And

1179

just to stress the point again, our use of "class struggle" to describe

1180

this type of anarchist group does not imply that "synthesis" or "Platformist"

1181

do not support the class struggle. They do!

1182

1183

This kind of group is half-way between the "synthesis" and the

1184

"Platform." The "class struggle" group agrees with the "synthesis"

1185

in so far as it is important to have a diverse viewpoints within

1186

a federation and that it would be a mistake to try to impose a

1187

common-line on different groups in different circumstances as the

1188

Platform does. However, like the "Platform," the class struggle

1189

group recognises that there is little point in creating a forced

1190

union between totally different strands of anarchism. Thus the

1191

"class struggle" group rejects the idea that individualist or

1192

mutualist anarchists should be part of the same organisation

1193

as anarchist communists or syndicalists or that anarcho-pacifists

1194

should join forces with non-pacifists. Thus the "class struggle"

1195

group acknowledges that an organisation which contains viewpoints

1196

which are dramatically opposed can lead to pointless debates and

1197

paralysis of action due to the impossibilities of overcoming those

1198

differences.

1199

1200

Instead, the "class struggle" group agrees a common set of "aims and

1201

principles" which are the basic terms of agreement within the

1202

federation. If an individual or group does not agree with this statement

1203

then they cannot join. If they are members and try to change this statement

1204

and cannot get the others to agree its modification, then they are morally

1205

bound to leave the organisation. In other words, there is a framework

1206

within which individuals and groups apply their own ideas and their

1207

interpretation of agreed policies. It means that individuals in

1208

a group and the groups within a federation have something to base their

1209

local activity on, something which has been agreed collectively. There

1210

would be a common thread to activities and a guide to action (particularly

1211

in situations were a group or federation meeting cannot be called). In this

1212

way individual initiative and co-operation can be reconciled, without

1213

hindering either. In addition, the "aims and principles"

1214

shows potential members where the anarchist group was coming from.

1215

1216

In this way the "class struggle" group solves one of the key problems

1217

with the "synthesis" grouping, namely that any such basic statement of

1218

political ideas would be hard to agree and be so watered down as to

1219

be almost useless (for example, a federation combining individualist and

1220

communist anarchists would find it impossible to agree on such things as

1221

the necessity for revolution, communal ownership, and so on). By clearly

1222

stating its ideas, the "class struggle" group ensures a common basis for

1223

activity and discussion.

1224

1225

Such a federation, like all anarchist groups, would be based upon regular

1226

assemblies locally and in frequent regional, national, etc., conferences

1227

to continually re-evaluate policies, tactics, strategies and goals. In

1228

addition, such meetings prevent power from collecting in the higher

1229

administration committees created to co-ordinate activity. The regular

1230

conferences aim to create federation policies on specific topics and

1231

agree common strategies. Such policies, once agreed, are morally binding

1232

on the membership, who can review and revise them as required at a later

1233

stage but cannot take action which would hinder their application (they

1234

do not have to apply them, if they consider them as a big mistake).

1235

1236

For example, minorities in such a federation can pursue their own policies

1237

as long as they clearly state that theirs is a minority position and does

1238

not contradict the federation's aims and principles. In this way the anarchist

1239

federation combines united action and dissent, for no general policy will

1240

be applicable in all circumstances and it is better for minorities to ignore

1241

policies which they know will make even greater problems in their area. As

1242

long as their actions and policies do not contradict the federation's basic

1243

political ideas, then diversity is an essential means for ensuring that the

1244

best tactic and ideas are be identified.

1245

1246

1247

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

1248

1249

1250

The aim of anarchist groups and federations is to spread libertarian

1251

ideas within society and within social movements. They aim to convince

1252

people of the validity of anarchist ideas and analysis, of the need for

1253

a libertarian transformation of society and of themselves by working with

1254

others as equals. Such groups are convinced that (to use Murray

1255

Bookchin's words) "anarcho-communism cannot remain a mere

1256

mood or tendency, wafting in the air like a cultural ambience.

1257

It must be organised -- indeed well-organised -- if it is

1258

effectively articulate and spread this new sensibility; it must have a

1259

coherent theory and extensive literature; it must be capable of duelling

1260

with the authoritarian movements that try to denature the intuitive

1261

libertarian impulses of our time and channel social unrest into

1262

hierarchical forms of organisation." [Looking Back at Spain",

1263

p. 90]

1264

1265

These groups and federations play a key role in anarchist theory.

1266

This is because anarchists are well aware that there are different

1267

levels of knowledge and consciousness in society. While people learn

1268

through struggle and their own experiences, different people

1269

develop at different speeds, that each individual is unique and

1270

is subject to different influences. As one pamphlet by the British

1271

Anarchist Federation puts it, the "experiences of working class

1272

life constantly lead to the development of ideas and actions which

1273

question the established order . . . At the same time, different

1274

sections of the working class reach different degrees of

1275

consciousness." [The Role of the Revolutionary Organisation,

1276

p. 13] This can easily be seen from any group of individuals of the same

1277

class or even community. Some are anarchists, others Marxists, some

1278

social democrats/labourites, others conservatives, others liberals,

1279

most "apolitical," some support trade unions, others are against and

1280

so on.

1281

1282

Because we are aware that we are one tendency among many,

1283

anarchists organise as anarchists to influence social struggle. Only

1284

when anarchists ideas are accepted by the vast majority will an

1285

anarchist society be possible. We wish, in other words, to win the

1286

most widespread understanding and influence for anarchist ideas

1287

and methods in the working class and in society, primarily because

1288

we believe that these alone will ensure a successful revolutionary

1289

transformation of society. Hence Malatesta:

1290

1291

"anarchists, convinced of the validity of our programme, must

1292

strive to acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw the

1293

movement towards the realisation of our ideals. But such influence

1294

must be won by doing more and better than others, and will be useful

1295

if won in that way . . . we must deepen, develop and

1296

propagate our ideas and co-ordinate our forces in a common action.

1297

We must act within the labour movement to prevent it being limited

1298

to and corrupted by the exclusive pursuit of small improvements

1299

compatible with the capitalist system . . . We must work with . . .

1300

[all the] masses to awaken the spirit of revolt and the desire for

1301

a free and happy life. We must initiate and support all movements

1302

that tend to weaken the forces of the State and of capitalism and

1303

to raise the mental level and material conditions of the workers."

1304

[The Anarchist Revolution, p. 109]</blockquote>

1305

1306

Anarchist organisation exists to help the process by which people

1307

come to anarchist conclusions. It aims to make explicit the feelings

1308

and thoughts that people have (such as, wage slavery is hell, that the

1309

state exists to oppress people and so on) by exposing as wrong

1310

common justifications for existing society and social relationships

1311

by a process of debate and providing a vision of something better. In

1312

other words, anarchist organisations seek to explain and clarify what

1313

is happening in society and show why anarchism is the only real

1314

solution to social problems. As part of this, we also have combat

1315

wrong ideas such as Liberalism, Social Democracy, Leninism,

1316

right-wing popularism and so on, indicating why these

1317

proposed solutions are false. In addition, an anarchist

1318

organisation must also be a 'collective memory' for the oppressed,

1319

keeping alive and developing the traditions of the labour and

1320

radical movements as well as anarchism so that new generations of

1321

libertarians have a body of experience to build upon and use in

1322

their struggles.

1323

1324

Anarchist organisations see themselves in the role of aiders, not

1325

leaders. As Voline argued, the minority which is politically aware

1326

"should intervene. But, in every place and under all

1327

circumstances, . . . [they] should freely participate in the common

1328

work, as true collaborators, not as dictators. It is necessary that

1329

they especially create an example, and employ themselves . . . without

1330

dominating, subjugating, or oppressing anyone . . . Accordingly to

1331

the libertarian thesis, it is the labouring masses themselves, who,

1332

by means of the various class organisations, factory committees,

1333

industrial and agricultural unions, co-operatives, et cetera, federated . . .

1334

should apply themselves everywhere, to solving the problems of

1335

waging the Revolution . . . As for the 'elite' [i.e. the politically aware],

1336

their role, according to the libertarians, is to help the masses,

1337

enlighten them, teach them, give them necessary advice, impel them

1338

to take initiative, provide them with an example, and support them

1339

in their action -- but not to direct them governmentally." [The

1340

Unknown Revolution, pp. 177-8]

1341

1342

This role is usually called providing a "leadership of ideas".

1343

Anarchists stress the difference of this concept with authoritarian

1344

notions of "leadership" such as Leninist ones. While both anarchist

1345

and Leninist organisations exist to overcome the problem of "uneven

1346

development" within the working class, the aims, role and structure of

1347

these groups could not be more different (as discussed in

1348

<a href="secH5.html">section H.5</a>, anarchists reject the assumptions

1349

and practice of vanguardism as incompatible with genuine socialism).

1350

1351

Anarchist groups are needed for, no matter how much people change through

1352

struggle, it is not enough in itself (if it were, we would be living in

1353

an anarchist society now!). So anarchists stress, as well as self-organisation,

1354

self-liberation and self-education through struggle developing libertarian

1355

socialist thought, the need for anarchist groups to work within popular

1356

organisations and in the mass of the population in general. These groups

1357

would play an important role in helping to clarify the ideas of those in

1358

struggle and undermining the internal and external barriers against these

1359

ideas.

1360

1361

The first of these are what Emma Goldman termed the "internal tyrants,"

1362

the "ethical and social conventions" of existing, hierarchical society

1363

which accustom people to authoritarian social relationships, injustice, lack of

1364

freedom and so on. [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 164-5] External barriers are

1365

what Chomsky terms "the Manufacture of Consent," the process by which the

1366

population at large are influenced to accept the status quo and the dominant

1367

elites viewpoint via the education system and media. It is this "manufacture

1368

of consent" which helps explain why, relatively speaking, there are so few

1369

anarchists even though we argue that anarchism is the natural product of

1370

working class life. While, objectively, the experiences of life drives

1371

working class people to resist domination and oppression, they enter that

1372

struggle with a history behind them, a history of education in capitalist

1373

schools, of consuming capitalist media, and so on.

1374

1375

This means that while social struggle is radicalising, it also has

1376

to combat years of pro-state and pro-capitalist influences. So even

1377

if an anarchist consciousness springs from the real conditions of

1378

working class life, because we live in a class society there are numerous

1379

counter-tendencies that inhibit the development of that consciousness

1380

(such as religion, current morality, the media, pro-business and pro-state

1381

propaganda, state and business repression and so on). This explains the

1382

differences in political opinion within the working class, as people

1383

develop at different speeds and are subject to different influences and

1384

experiences. However, the numerous internal and external barriers to

1385

the development of anarchist opinions created our "internal tyrants"

1386

and by the process of "manufacturing consent" can be, and are, weaken

1387

by rational discussion as well as social struggle and self-activity.

1388

Indeed, until such time as we have "learned to defy them all [the internal

1389

tyrants], to stand firmly on [our] own ground and to insist upon

1390

[our] own unrestricted freedom" we can never be free or successfully

1391

combat the "manufacture of consent." [Goldman, Op. Cit.,

1392

p. 140] And this is where the anarchist group can play a part, for

1393

there is an important role to be played by those who have been through

1394

this process already, namely to aid those going through it.

1395

1396

Of course the activity of an anarchist group does not occur in a vacuum.

1397

In periods of low class struggle, where there is little collective action,

1398

anarchist ideas will seem utopian and so dismissed by most. In

1399

these situations, only a few will become anarchists simply because the

1400

experiences of working people do not bred confidence that an alternative

1401

to the current system is possible. In addition, if anarchist groups are

1402

small, many who are looking for an alternative may join other groups

1403

which are more visible and express a libertarian sounding rhetoric

1404

(such as Leninist groups, who often talk about workers' control,

1405

workers' councils and so on while meaning something distinctly

1406

different from what anarchists mean by these terms). However, as

1407

the class struggle increases and people become more inclined to

1408

take collective action, they can become empowered and radicalised

1409

by their own activity and be more open to anarchist ideas and the

1410

possibility of changing society. In these situations, anarchist groups

1411

grow and the influence in anarchist ideas increases. This explains

1412

why anarchist ideas are not as widespread as they could be. It also

1413

indicates another important role for the anarchist group, namely to

1414

provide an environment and space where those drawn to anarchist

1415

ideas can meet and share experiences and ideas during periods of

1416

reaction.

1417

1418

The role of the anarchist group, therefore, is not to import

1419

a foreign ideology into the working class, but rather to help

1420

develop and clarify the ideas of those working class people

1421

who are moving towards anarchism and so aid those

1422

undergoing that development. They would aid this development by

1423

providing propaganda which exposes the current social system

1424

(and the rationales for it) as bankrupt as well as encouraging

1425

resistance to oppression and exploitation. The former, for

1426

Bakunin, allowed the "bringing [of] a more just general expression,

1427

a new and more congenial form to the existent instincts of the

1428

proletariat . . . [which] can sometimes facilitate and precipitate

1429

development . . . [and] give them an awareness of what they have,

1430

of what they feel, of what they already instinctively desire, but

1431

never can it give to them what they don't have." The latter "is

1432

the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form

1433

of propaganda" and "awake[s] in the masses all the social-revolutionary

1434

instincts which reside deeply in the heart of every worker" so

1435

allowing instinct to become transformed into "reflected socialist

1436

thought." [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political

1437

Thought of Michael Bakunin, p. 107, p. 108 and p. 141]

1438

1439

To quote the UK Anarchist Federation, again "the [libertarian]

1440

organisation is not just a propaganda group: above all it must actively

1441

work in all the grassroots organisations of the working class such as

1442

rank and file [trade union] groups, tenants associations, squatters and

1443

unemployed groups as well as women's, black and gay groups." It

1444

"respects the independence of working class movements and (unlike]

1445

others) does not try to subordinate them to the revolutionary organisation.

1446

This does not mean that it does not seek to spread its ideas in these

1447

movements." [Op. Cit., p. 15 and p. 16] Such an organisation

1448

is not vanguardist in the Leninist sense as it

1449

recognises that socialist politics derive from working class experience,

1450

rather than bourgeois intellectuals (as Lenin and Karl Kautsky argued),

1451

and that it does not aim to dominate popular movements but rather work

1452

within them as equals.

1453

1454

So while we recognise that "advanced" sections do exist within

1455

the working class and that anarchists are one such section, we

1456

also recognise that central characteristic of anarchism is

1457

that its politics are derived from the concrete experience of

1458

fighting capitalism and statism directly -- that is, from the

1459

realities of working class life. This means that anarchists must

1460

also learn from working class people in struggle. If we recognise

1461

that anarchist ideas are the product of working class experience

1462

and self-activity and that these constantly change and develop in

1463

light of new experiences and struggles then anarchist theory must

1464

be open to change by learning from non-anarchists. Not to recognise

1465

this fact is to open the door to vanguardism and dogma. Because

1466

of this fact, anarchists argue that the relationship between

1467

anarchists and non-anarchists must be an egalitarian one, based

1468

on mutual interaction and the recognition that no one is infallible

1469

or have all the answers -- including anarchists! With this

1470

in mind, while we recognise the presence of "advanced" groups

1471

within the working class (which obviously reflects the uneven

1472

development within it), anarchists aim to minimise such

1473

unevenness by the way anarchist organisations intervene

1474

in social struggle, intervention based on involving all

1475

in the decision making process (as we discuss below).

1476

1477

Thus the general aim of anarchist groups is to spread ideas -- such as

1478

general anarchist analysis of society and current events, libertarian

1479

forms of organisation, direct action and solidarity and so forth -- and

1480

win people over to anarchism (i.e. to "make" anarchists). This involves

1481

both propaganda and participating as equals in social struggle and

1482

popular organisation. Anarchists do not think that changing leaders

1483

is a solution to the problem of (bad) leadership. Rather, it is a question

1484

of making leaders redundant by empowering all. As Malatesta argued,

1485

we "do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to

1486

emancipate themselves." Thus anarchists "advocate and practise

1487

direct action, decentralisation, autonomy and individual initiative; they

1488

should make special efforts to help members [of popular organisations]

1489

learn to participate directly in the life of the organisation and to

1490

dispense with leaders and full-time functionaries." [Errico

1491

Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 90 and p. 125]

1492

1493

This means that anarchists reject the idea that anarchist groups and

1494

federations must become the "leaders" of organisations. Rather, we

1495

desire anarchist ideas to be commonplace in society and in popular

1496

organisations, so that leadership by people from positions of power

1497

is replaced by the "natural influence" (to use Bakunin's term) of

1498

activists within the rank and file on the decisions made by the

1499

rank and file. While we will discuss Bakunin's ideas in more detail

1500

in

1501

<a href="secJ3.html#secj37">section J.3.7</a>,

1502

the concept of "natural influence" can be gathered

1503

from this comment of Francisco Ascaso (friend of Durruti and an

1504

influential anarchist militant in the CNT and FAI in his own right):

1505

1506

"There is not a single militant who as a 'FAIista' intervenes in

1507

union meetings. I work, therefore I am an exploited person. I pay

1508

my dues to the workers' union and when I intervene at union meetings

1509

I do it as someone who is exploited, and with the right which is

1510

granted me by the card in my possession, as do the other militants,

1511

whether they belong to the FAI or not." [quoted by Abel Paz,

1512

Durruti: The People Armed, p. 137]

1513

</blockquote>

1514

This shows the nature of the "leadership of ideas." Rather than be elected

1515

to a position of power or responsibility, the anarchist presents their ideas

1516

at mass meetings and argues his or her case. This means obviously implies

1517

a two-way learning process, as the anarchist learns from the experiences

1518

of others and the others come in contact with anarchist ideas. Moreover,

1519

it is an egalitarian relationship, based upon discussion between equals

1520

rather than urging people to place someone into power above them. It

1521

ensures that everyone in the organisation participants in making,

1522

understands and agrees with the decisions reached. This obviously

1523

helps the political development of all involved (including, we must

1524

stress, the anarchists). As Durruti argued: "the man [or woman] who

1525

alienates his will, can never be free to express himself and follow his

1526

own ideas at a union meeting if he feel dominated by the feeblest

1527

orator . . . As long as a man doesn't think for himself and doesn't

1528

assume his own responsibilities, there will be no complete liberation

1529

of human beings." [quoted by Paz, Op. Cit., p. 184]

1530

1531

Because of our support for the "leadership of ideas", anarchists think

1532

that all popular organisations must be open, fully self-managed and

1533

free from authoritarianism. Only in this way can ideas and discussion

1534

play an important role in the life of the organisation. Since anarchists

1535

"do not believe in the good that comes from above and imposed by

1536

force" and "want the new way of life to emerge from the body of

1537

the people and advance as they advance. It matters to us therefore

1538

that all interests and opinions find their expression in a conscious

1539

organisation and should influence communal life in proportion

1540

to their importance." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 90] Bakunin's

1541

words with regards the first International Workers Association

1542

indicate this clearly:

1543

1544

"It must be a people's movement, organised from the bottom up by

1545

the free, spontaneous action of the masses. There must be no secret

1546

governmentalism, the masses must be informed of everything . . .

1547

All the affairs of the International must be thoroughly and openly

1548

discussed without evasions and circumlocutions." [Bakunin on

1549

Anarchism, p. 408]

1550

</blockquote>

1551

Given this, anarchists reject the idea of turning the organs

1552

created in the class struggle and revolutionary process into

1553

hierarchical structures. By turning them from organs of

1554

self-management into organs for nominating "leaders," the

1555

constructive tasks and political development of the revolution

1556

will be aborted before they really begin. The active participation

1557

of all will become reduced to the picking of new masters and the

1558

revolution will falter. For this reason, anarchists "differ

1559

from the Bolshevik type of party in their belief that genuine

1560

revolutionaries must function within the framework of the

1561

forms created by the revolution, not within forms created

1562

by the party." This means that "an

1563

organisation is needed to propagate ideas systematically -- and

1564

not ideas alone, but ideas which promote the concept of

1565

self-management." In other words, there "is a need

1566

for a revolutionary organisation -- but its function must always

1567

be kept clearly in mind. Its first task is propaganda . . . In a

1568

revolutionary situation, the revolutionary organisation presents

1569

the most advanced demands: it is prepared at every turn of events

1570

to formulate -- in the most concrete fashion -- the immediate task

1571

that should be performed to advance the revolutionary process. It

1572

provides the boldest elements in action and in the decision-making

1573

organs of the revolution." [Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity

1574

Anarchism, p. 140] What it does not do is to supplant

1575

those organs or decision-making process by creating institutionalised,

1576

hierarchical leadership structures.

1577

1578

Equally as important as how anarchists intervene in social struggles

1579

and popular organisations and the organisation of those struggles and

1580

organisations, there is the question of the nature of that intervention.

1581

We would like to quote the following by the British libertarian

1582

socialist group Solidarity as it sums up the underlying nature

1583

of anarchist action and the importance of a libertarian perspective

1584

on social struggle and change and how politically aware minorities

1585

work within them:

1586

1587

"Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases

1588

the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the

1589

solidarity, the egalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the

1590

masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and

1591

harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses,

1592

their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy,

1593

their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and

1594

the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others --

1595

even by those allegedly acting on their behalf." [Maurice Brinton,

1596

For Workers' Power, p. 154]

1597

</blockquote>

1598

Part of this "meaningful action" involves encouraging people to

1599

"act for yourselves" (to use Kropotkin's words). As we noted

1600

in <a href="secA2.html#seca27">section A.2.7</a>,

1601

anarchism is based on self-liberation and

1602

self-activity is key aspect of this. Hence Malatesta's argument:

1603

1604

"Our task is that of 'pushing' the people to demand and to seize all

1605

the freedom they can and to make themselves responsible for providing

1606

their own needs without waiting for orders from any kind of authority.

1607

Our task is that of demonstrating the uselessness and harmfulness of

1608

government, provoking and encouraging by propaganda and action, all

1609

kinds of individual and collective activities.</blockquote>

1610

1611

1612

"It is in fact a question of education for freedom, of making people

1613

who are accustomed to obedience and passivity consciously aware of

1614

their real power and capabilities. One must encourage people to do

1615

things for themselves." [Op. Cit., pp. 178-9]

1616

</blockquote>

1617

This "pushing" people to "do it themselves" is another key role for

1618

any anarchist organisation. The encouragement of direct action is just

1619

as important as anarchist propaganda and popular participation within

1620

social struggle and popular organisations.

1621

1622

As such social struggle developments, the possibility of revolution

1623

becomes closer and closer. While we discuss anarchists ideas on social

1624

revolution in <a href="secJ7.html">section J.7</a>,

1625

we must note here that the role of the

1626

anarchist organisation does not change. As Bookchin argued,

1627

anarchists "seek to persuade the factory committees, assemblies"

1628

and other organisations created by people in struggle "to make

1629

themselves into genuine organs of popular self-management,

1630

not to dominate them, manipulate them, or hitch them to an all-knowing

1631

political party." [Op. Cit., p. 140] In this way, by encouraging

1632

self-management in struggle, anarchist lay the foundations of a self-managed

1633

society.

1634

1635

1636

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

1637

1638

1639

No. While Bakunin did use the term "invisible dictatorship", it

1640

does not prove that Bakunin or anarchists are secret authoritarians. The

1641

claim otherwise, often made by Leninists and other Marxists, expresses a

1642

distinct, even wilful, misunderstanding of Bakunin's ideas on the role

1643

revolutionaries should play in popular movements.

1644

1645

Marxists quote Bakunin's terms "invisible dictatorship" and "collective

1646

dictatorship" out of context, using it to "prove" that anarchists are secret

1647

authoritarians, seeking dictatorship over the masses. More widely, the

1648

question of Bakunin and his "invisible dictatorship" finds its way into

1649

sympathetic accounts of anarchist ideas. For example, Peter

1650

Marshall writes that it is "not difficult to conclude that Bakunin's

1651

invisible dictatorship would be even more tyrannical than a . . . Marxist

1652

one" and that it expressed a "profound authoritarian and dissimulating

1653

streak in his life and work." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 287] So,

1654

the question of setting the record straight about this aspect of Bakunin's

1655

theory is of more importance than just correcting a few Leninists. In

1656

addition, to do so will help clarify the concept of "leadership of ideas"

1657

we discussed in the <a href="secJ3.html#secj36">last section</a>.

1658

For both these reasons, this section,

1659

while initially appearing somewhat redundant and of interest only to

1660

academics, is of a far wider interest.

1661

1662

Anarchists have two responses to claims that Bakunin (and,

1663

by implication, all anarchists) seek an "invisible"

1664

dictatorship and so are not true libertarians. Firstly, and

1665

this is the point we will concentrate upon in this section,

1666

Bakunin's expression is taken out of context and when placed

1667

within context it takes on a radically different meaning than

1668

that implied by critics of anarchism. Secondly, even if

1669

the expression means what the critics claim it does, it does

1670

not refute anarchism as a political theory. This is because

1671

anarchists are not Bakuninists (or Proudhonists or

1672

Kropotkinites or any other person-ist). We recognise other

1673

anarchists for what they are, human beings who said lots of

1674

important and useful things but, like any other human being,

1675

made mistakes and often do not live up to all of their ideas.

1676

For anarchists, it is a question of

1677

extracting the useful parts from their works and rejecting

1678

the useless (as well as the downright nonsense!). Just because

1679

Bakunin said something, it does not make it right! This

1680

common-sense approach to politics seems to be lost on Marxists.

1681

Indeed, if we take the logic of these Marxists to its conclusion,

1682

we must reject everything Rousseau wrote (he was sexist), Marx

1683

and Engels (their comments against Slavs spring to mind, along

1684

with numerous other racist comments) and so on. But, of course,

1685

this never happens to non-anarchist thinkers when Marxists

1686

write their articles and books.

1687

1688

However, to return to our main argument, that of the importance

1689

of context. Significantly, whenever Bakunin uses the term "invisible"

1690

or "collective" dictatorship he also explicitly states his opposition

1691

to government power and in particular the idea that anarchists

1692

should seize it. For example, a Leninist quotes the following passage

1693

from "a Bakuninist document" to show "the dictatorial ambitions

1694

of Bakunin" and that the "principle of anti-democracy was to leave

1695

Bakunin unchallenged at the apex of power": "It is necessary that

1696

in the midst of popular anarchy, which will constitute the very life and

1697

energy of the revolution, unity of thought and revolutionary action should

1698

find an organ. This organ must be the secret and world-wide association of

1699

the international brethren." [Derek Howl, "The legacy of Hal Draper",

1700

pp. 137-49, International Socialist, no. 52, p. 147]

1701

1702

However, in the sentence immediately before those quoted, Bakunin

1703

stated that "[t]his organisation rules out any idea of dictatorship and

1704

custodial control." Strange that this part of the document was not

1705

quoted! Nor is Bakunin quoted when he wrote, in the same document,

1706

that "[w]e are the natural enemies of those revolutionaries -- future

1707

dictators, regimentors and custodians of revolution -- who . . . [want]

1708

to create new revolutionary States just as centralist and despotic as

1709

those we already know." Not mentioned either is Bakunin's opinion that

1710

the "revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme

1711

control must always belong to the people organised into a free federation

1712

of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom

1713

upwards by means of revolutionary delegations . . . [who] will set out to

1714

administer public services, not to rule over peoples." [Michael Bakunin:

1715

Selected Writings, p. 172, p. 169 and p. 172] Selective quoting is only

1716

convincing to those ignorant of the subject.

1717

1718

Similarly, when we look at the situations where Bakunin uses the terms

1719

"invisible" or "collective" dictatorship (usually in letters

1720

to comrades) we find the same thing -- the explicit denial in these

1721

same letters that Bakunin thought the revolutionary association

1722

should take governmental power. For example, in a letter to

1723

Albert Richard (a fellow member of the "Alliance of

1724

Social Democracy") Bakunin stated that "[t]here is only one

1725

power and one dictatorship whose organisation is salutary and

1726

feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those

1727

who are allied in the name of our principle." He then immediately

1728

adds that "this dictatorship will be all the more salutary and

1729

effective for not being dressed up in any official power or

1730

extrinsic character." Earlier in the letter he argued that

1731

anarchists must be "like invisible pilots in the thick of the

1732

popular tempest. . . steer[ing] it [the revolution] not by any

1733

open power but by the collective dictatorship of all the allies

1734

-- a dictatorship without insignia, titles or official rights,

1735

and all the stronger for having none of the paraphernalia

1736

of power." Explicitly opposing "Committees of Public Safety

1737

and official, overt dictatorship" he explains his idea of a

1738

revolution based on "workers hav[ing] joined into associations . . .

1739

armed and organised by streets and quartiers, the federative

1740

commune." [Op. Cit., p. 181, p. 180 and p. 179] Hardly

1741

what would be expected from a would-be dictator. As Sam Dolgoff

1742

suggested:

1743

1744

"an organisation exercising no overt authority, without a

1745

state, without official status, without the machinery of

1746

institutionalised power to enforce its policies, cannot be defined as

1747

a dictatorship . . . Moreover, if it is borne in mind that this passage

1748

is part of a letter repudiating in the strongest terms the State and

1749

the authoritarian statism of the 'Robespierres, the Dantons, and the

1750

Saint-Justs of the revolution,' it is reasonable to conclude that

1751

Bakunin used the word 'dictatorship' to denote preponderant

1752

influence or guidance exercised largely by example . . . In line

1753

with this conclusion, Bakunin used the words 'invisible' and

1754

'collective' to denote the underground movement exerting this

1755

influence in an organised manner." [Bakunin on Anarchism,

1756

p. 182]</blockquote>

1757

1758

This analysis is confirmed by other passages from Bakunin's letters.

1759

In a letter to the Nihilist Sergi Nechaev (within which Bakunin

1760

indicates exactly how far apart politically they were -- which is

1761

important as, from Marx onwards, many of Bakunin's opponents

1762

quote Nechaev's pamphlets as if they were "Bakuninist," when

1763

in fact they were not) we find him arguing that:

1764

1765

"These [revolutionary] groups would not seek anything for

1766

themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power . . . [but]

1767

would be in a position to direct popular movements . . . and lead

1768

the people towards the most complete realisation of the

1769

social-economic ideal and the organisation of the fullest popular

1770

freedom. This is what I call the collective dictatorship of

1771

a secret organisation.</blockquote>

1772

1773

1774

"The dictatorship . . . does not reward any of the members that

1775

comprise the groups, or the groups themselves, with any profit or

1776

honour or official power. It does not threaten the freedom of the

1777

people, because, lacking any official character, it does not take

1778

the place of State control over the people, and because its whole

1779

aim . . . consists of the fullest realisation of the liberty of the

1780

people.</blockquote>

1781

1782

1783

"This sort of dictatorship is not in the least contrary to the

1784

free development and the self-development of the people, nor its

1785

organisation from the bottom upward . . . for it influences the

1786

people exclusively through the natural, personal influence of its

1787

members, who have not the slightest power, . . . and . . . try . . .

1788

to direct the spontaneous revolutionary movement of the people towards

1789

. . . the organisation of popular liberty . . . This secret dictatorship

1790

would in the first place, and at the present time, carry out a

1791

broadly based popular propaganda . . . and by the power of this

1792

propaganda and also by organisation among the people themselves

1793

join together separate popular forces into a mighty strength capable

1794

of demolishing the State." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,

1795

pp. 193-4]

1796

</blockquote>

1797

The key aspect of this is the notion of "natural" influence.

1798

In a letter to a Spanish member of the Alliance we find Bakunin

1799

arguing that it "will promote the Revolution only through the

1800

natural but never official influence of all members of the

1801

Alliance." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 387] This term was

1802

also used in his public writings, with Bakunin arguing that the

1803

"very freedom of every individual results from th[e] great number

1804

of material, intellectual, and moral influences which every

1805

individual around him and which society . . . continually exercise

1806

on him" and that "everything alive . . . intervene[s] . . .

1807

in the life of others . . . [so] we hardly wish to abolish the

1808

effect of any individual's or any group of individuals' natural

1809

influence upon the masses." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 140

1810

and p. 141]

1811

1812

Thus "natural influence" simply means the effect of communicating

1813

which others, discussing your ideas with them and winning them over

1814

to your position, nothing more. This is hardly authoritarian, and so

1815

Bakunin contrasts this "natural" influence with "official"

1816

influence, which replaced the process of mutual interaction between

1817

equals with a fixed hierarchy of command and thereby induced the

1818

"transformation of natural influence, and, as such, the perfectly

1819

legitimate influence over man, into a right." [quoted by Richard B.

1820

Saltman, The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin,

1821

p. 46]

1822

1823

As an example of this difference, consider the case of a union

1824

militant (as will become clear, this is the sort of example Bakunin

1825

had in mind). As long as they are part of the rank-and-file, arguing

1826

their case at union meetings or being delegated to carry out the

1827

decisions of these assemblies then their influence is "natural."

1828

However, if this militant is elected into a position with executive

1829

power in the union (i.e. becomes a full-time union official, for

1830

example, rather than a shop-steward) then their influence becomes

1831

"official" and so, potentially, corrupting for both the militant

1832

and the rank-and-file who are subject to the rule of the official.

1833

1834

Indeed, this notion of "natural" influence was

1835

also termed "invisible" by Bakunin: "It is only necessary

1836

that one worker in ten join the [International Working-Men's] Association

1837

earnestly and with full understanding of the cause for the

1838

nine-tenths remaining outside its organisation nevertheless to be

1839

influenced invisibly by it." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 139]

1840

So, as can be seen, the terms "invisible" and "collective"

1841

dictatorship used by Bakunin in his letters is strongly related to the

1842

term "natural influence" used in his public works and seems to

1843

be used simply to indicate the effects of an organised political group

1844

on the masses. To see this, it is worthwhile to quote Bakunin at length

1845

about the nature of this "invisible" influence:

1846

1847

"It may be objected that this . . . influence on the popular masses

1848

suggests the establishment of a system of authority and a new government

1849

. . . Such a belief would be a serious blunder. The organised effect of

1850

the International on the masses . . . is nothing but the entirely natural

1851

organisation -- neither official nor clothed in any authority or political

1852

force whatsoever -- of the effect of a rather numerous group of individuals

1853

who are inspired by the same thought and headed toward the same goal,

1854

first of all on the opinion of the masses and only then, by the

1855

intermediary of this opinion (restated by the International's propaganda),

1856

on their will and their deeds. But the governments . . . impose themselves

1857

violently on the masses, who are forced to obey them and to execute their

1858

decrees . . . The International's influence will never be anything but one

1859

of opinion and the International will never be anything but the organisation

1860

of the natural effect of individuals on the masses." [Op. Cit.,

1861

pp. 139-40]

1862

</blockquote>

1863

Therefore, from both the fuller context provided by the works and

1864

letters selectively quoted by Marxists and his other writings,

1865

we find that rather than being a secret authoritarian, Bakunin was,

1866

in fact, trying to express how anarchists could "naturally influence"

1867

the masses and their revolution:

1868

1869

"We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of official

1870

power . . . We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared

1871

dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists . . . if we are

1872

anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and

1873

what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort

1874

of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people's

1875

revolution? By a force that is invisible . . . that is not imposed

1876

on anyone . . . [and] deprived of all official rights and significance."

1877

[Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 191-2]

1878

</blockquote>

1879

Continually opposing "official" power, authority and influence,

1880

Bakunin used the term "invisible, collective dictatorship" to

1881

describe the "natural influence" of organised anarchists on mass

1882

movements. Rather than express a desire to become a dictator, it in

1883

fact expresses the awareness that there is an "uneven" political

1884

development within the working class, an unevenness that can only

1885

be undermined by discussion within the mass assemblies of popular

1886

organisations. Any attempt to by-pass this "unevenness" by seizing or

1887

being elected to positions of power (i.e. by "official influence")

1888

would be doomed to failure and result in dictatorship by a party --

1889

"triumph of the Jacobins or the Blanquists [or the Bolsheviks, we must

1890

add] would be the death of the Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 169]

1891

1892

So rather than seek power, the anarchists would seek influence based

1893

on the soundness of their ideas, what anarchists today term the "leadership

1894

of ideas" in other words. Thus the anarchist federation "unleashes their

1895

[the peoples] will and gives wider opportunity for their self-determination

1896

and their social-economic organisation, which should be created by them alone

1897

from the bottom upwards . . . The [revolutionary] organisation . . . [must]

1898

not in any circumstances . . . ever be their master . . . What is to be

1899

the chief aim and pursue of this organisation? To help the people

1900

towards self-determination on the lines of the most complete equality and

1901

fullest human freedom in every direction, without the least interference from

1902

any sort of domination . . . that is without any sort of government control."

1903

[Op. Cit., p. 191]

1904

1905

This analysis can be seen from Bakunin's discussion on union

1906

bureaucracy and how anarchists should combat it. Taking the Geneva

1907

section of the IWMA, Bakunin notes that the construction workers'

1908

section "simply left all decision-making to their committees . . .

1909

In this manner power gravitated to the committees, and by a species

1910

of fiction characteristic of all governments the committees substituted

1911

their own will and their own ideas for that of the membership."

1912

To combat this bureaucracy, the union "sections could only defend

1913

their rights and their autonomy in only one way: the workers called general

1914

membership meetings. Nothing arouses the antipathy of the committees

1915

more than these popular assemblies . . . In these great meetings of the

1916

sections, the items on the agenda was amply discussed and the most

1917

progressive opinion prevailed." Given that Bakunin considered

1918

"the federative Alliance of all the workers' associations"

1919

would "constitute the Commune" by means of delegates with

1920

"always responsible, and revocable mandates", we can easily see

1921

that the role of the anarchist federation would be to intervene in

1922

general assemblies of these associations and ensure, through debate,

1923

that the most progressive opinion prevailed. [Bakunin on Anarchism,

1924

p. 246, p. 247 and p. 153]

1925

1926

Having shown that the role of Bakunin's revolutionary organisations

1927

is drastically different than that suggested by the selective quotations

1928

of Marxists, we need to address two more issues. One, the so-called

1929

hierarchical nature of Bakunin's organisations and, two, their secret

1930

nature. Taking the issue of hierarchy first, we can do no better than

1931

quote Richard B. Saltman's summary of the internal organisation of

1932

these groups:

1933

1934

"The association's 'single will,' Bakunin wrote, would be determined

1935

by 'laws' that every member 'helped to create,' or at a minimum 'equally

1936

approved' by 'mutual agreement.' This 'definite set of rules' was to be

1937

'frequently renewed' in plenary sessions wherein each member had the

1938

'duty to try and make his view prevail,' but then he must accept fully

1939

the decision of the majority. Thus the revolutionary association's

1940

'rigorously conceived and prescribed plan,' implemented under the

1941

'strictest discipline,' was in reality to be 'nothing more or less

1942

than the expression and direct outcome of the reciprocal commitment

1943

contracted by each of the members towards the others.'" [Op.

1944

Cit., p. 115]

1945

</blockquote>

1946

While many anarchists would not totally agree with this set-up

1947

(although we think that most supporters of the "Platform" would) all

1948

would agree that it is not hierarchical. If anything, it appears

1949

quite democratic in nature. Moreover, comments in Bakunin's letters

1950

to other Alliance members support the argument that his revolutionary

1951

associations were more democratic in nature than Marxists suggest.

1952

In a letter to a Spanish comrade we find him suggesting that "all

1953

[Alliance] groups. . . should. . . from now on accept new members

1954

not by majority vote, but unanimously." [Op. Cit., p. 386]

1955

In a letter to Italian members of the IWMA he argued that in

1956

Geneva the Alliance did not resort to "secret plots and intrigues."

1957

Rather:

1958

1959

"Everything was done in broad daylight, openly, for everyone to

1960

see . . . The Alliance had regular weekly open meetings and everyone

1961

was urged to participate in the discussions . . . The old procedure

1962

where members sat and passively listened to speakers talking down

1963

to them from their pedestal was discarded.</blockquote>

1964

1965

"It was established that all meetings be conducted by informal

1966

round-table conversational discussions in which everybody felt

1967

free to participate: not to be talked at, but to exchange

1968

views." [Op. Cit., pp. 405-6]

1969

</blockquote>

1970

Moreover, we find Bakunin being out-voted within the Alliance,

1971

hardly what we would expect if they were top-down dictatorships

1972

run by him as Marxists claim. The historian T.R. Ravindranathan

1973

indicates that after the Alliance was founded "Bakunin wanted

1974

the Alliance to become a branch of the International [Worker's

1975

Association] and at the same time preserve it as a secret society. The

1976

Italian and some French members wanted the Alliance to be totally

1977

independent of the IWA and objected to Bakunin's secrecy. Bakunin's

1978

view prevailed on the first question as he succeeded in convincing

1979

the majority of the harmful effects of a rivalry between the Alliance

1980

and the International. On the question of secrecy, he gave way to his

1981

opponents." [Bakunin and the Italians, p. 83]

1982

1983

Moreover, if Bakunin did seek to create a centralised, hierarchical

1984

organisation, as Marxists claim, he did not do a good job. We find him complaining

1985

that the Madrid Alliance was breaking up ("The news of the dissolution

1986

of the Alliance in Spain saddened Bakunin. he intensified his letter-writing

1987

to Alliance members whom he trusted . . . He tried to get the Spaniards

1988

to reverse their decision" [Juan Gomez Casa, Anarchist Organisation,

1989

pp. 37-8]). While the "Bakuninist" Spanish and Swiss sections of

1990

the IWMA sent delegates to its infamous Hague congress, the "Bakuninist"

1991

Italian section did not. Of course, Marxists could argue that these facts

1992

show Bakunin's cunning nature, but the more obvious explanation is that

1993

Bakunin did not create a hierarchical organisation with himself at the top.

1994

1995

The evidence suggests that the Alliance "was not a compulsory or

1996

authoritarian body." In Spain, it "acted independently and was

1997

prompted by purely local situations. The copious correspondence

1998

between Bakunin and his friends . . . was at all times motivated by

1999

the idea of offering advice, persuading, and clarifying. It was never

2000

written in a spirit of command, because that was not his style, nor

2001

would it have been accepted as such by his associates." Moreover,

2002

there "is no trace or shadow or hierarchical organisation in a letter

2003

from Bakunin to Mora . . . On the contrary, Bakunin advises 'direct'

2004

relations between Spanish and Italian Comrades." The Spanish

2005

comrades also wrote a pamphlet which "ridiculed the fable of orders

2006

from abroad." [Casa, Op. Cit., p. 25 and p. 40] This is

2007

confirmed by George R. Esenwein who argues that "[w]hile it is true

2008

that Bakunin's direct intervention during the early days of the

2009

International's development in Spain had assured the pre-dominance

2010

of his influence in the various federations and sections" of the

2011

organisation, "it cannot be said that he manipulated it or otherwise

2012

used the Spanish Alliance as a tool for his own subversive designs."

2013

Thus, "though the Alliance did exist in Spain, the society did not

2014

bear any resemblance to the nefarious organisation that the Marxists

2015

depicted." [Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement

2016

in Spain, p. 42] Indeed, as Max Nettlau points out, those Spaniards

2017

who did break with the Alliance were persuaded of its "hierarchical

2018

organisation . . . not by their own direct observation, but by what

2019

they had been told about the conduct of the organisation" in other

2020

countries. [quoted by Casa, Op. Cit., pp. 39-40]. In addition,

2021

if Bakunin did run the Alliance under his own personal

2022

dictatorship we would expect it to change or dissolve upon his death.

2023

However, "the Spanish Alliance survived Bakunin, who died in 1876,

2024

yet with few exceptions it continued to function in much the same way

2025

it had during Bakunin's lifetime." [Esenwein, Op. Cit., p. 43]

2026

2027

Moving on to the second issue, the question of why Bakunin favoured

2028

secret organisation. At the time many states where despotic monarchies,

2029

with little or no civil rights. As he argued, "nothing but a secret

2030

society would want to take this [arousing a revolution] on, for

2031

the interests of the government and of the government classes

2032

would be bitterly opposed to it." [Michael Bakunin: Selected

2033

Writings, p. 188] For survival, Bakunin considered secrecy an

2034

essential. As Juan Gomez Casas noted: "In view of the difficulties

2035

of that period, Bakunin believed that secret groups of convinced

2036

and absolutely trustworthy men were safer and more effective.

2037

They would be able to place themselves at the head of developments

2038

at critical moments, but only to inspire and to clarify the issues."

2039

[Op. Cit., p. 22] Even Marxists, faced with dictatorial states,

2040

have organised in secret and as George R. Esenwein points out, the

2041

"claim that Bakunin's organisation scheme was not the product

2042

of a 'hard-headed realism' cannot be supported in the light of

2043

the experiences of the Spanish Alliancists. It is beyond doubt

2044

that their adherence to Bakunin's program greatly contributed

2045

to the FRE's [Spanish section of the First International] ability

2046

to flourish during the early part of the 1870s and to survive the

2047

harsh circumstances of repression in the period 1874-1881."

2048

[Op. Cit., p. 224f] So Bakunin's personal experiences in Tsarist

2049

Russia and other illiberal states shaped his ideas on how revolutionaries

2050

should organise (and let us not forget that he had been imprisoned

2051

in the Peter and Paul prison for his activities).

2052

2053

This is not to suggest that all of Bakunin's ideas on the role and

2054

nature of anarchist groups are accepted by anarchists today. Most

2055

anarchists would reject Bakunin's arguments for secrecy, for example

2056

(particularly as secrecy cannot help but generate an atmosphere of

2057

deceit and, potentially, manipulation). Anarchists remember that

2058

anarchism did not spring fully formed and complete from Bakunin's

2059

(or any other individual's) head. Rather it was developed over time

2060

and by many individuals, inspired by many different experiences and

2061

movements. As such, anarchists recognise that Bakunin was

2062

inconsistent in some ways, as would be expected from a theorist

2063

breaking new ground, and this applies to his ideas on how anarchist

2064

groups should work within and the role they should play in popular

2065

movements. Most of his ideas are valid, once we place them into context,

2066

some are not. Anarchists embrace the valid ones and voice their

2067

opposition to the others.

2068

2069

In summary, any apparent contradiction between the "public" and

2070

"private" Bakunin disappears once we place his comments into

2071

context within both the letters he wrote and his overall political

2072

theory. As Brian Morris argues, those who argue that Bakunin was in

2073

favour of despotism only come to "these conclusions by an incredible

2074

distortion of the substance of what Bakunin was trying to convey in

2075

his letters to Richard and Nechaev" and "[o]nly the most

2076

jaundiced scholar, or one blinded by extreme antipathy towards

2077

Bakunin or anarchism, could interpret these words as indicating

2078

that Bakunin conception of a secret society implied a revolutionary

2079

dictatorship in the Jacobin sense, still less a 'despotism'"

2080

[Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 144 and p. 149]

2081

2082

2083

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

2084

2085

2086

Anarcho-syndicalism (as mentioned in

2087

<a href="secA3.html#seca32">section A.3.2</a>) is a form of

2088

anarchism which applies itself (primarily) to creating industrial

2089

unions organised in an anarchist manner, using anarchist tactics

2090

(such as direct action) to create a free society. To quote "The

2091

Principles of Revolutionary Syndicalism" of the International

2092

Workers Association:

2093

2094

"Revolutionary Syndicalism is that movement of the working classes

2095

founded on the basis of class war, which strives for the union of

2096

manual and intellectual workers in economic fighting organisations,

2097

in order to prepare for and realise in practice their liberation from

2098

the yoke of wage-slavery and state oppression. Its goal is the

2099

reorganisation of social life on the basis of free communism through

2100

the collective revolutionary action of the working classes themselves.

2101

It takes the view that only the economic organisations of the

2102

proletariat are appropriate for the realisation of this task and

2103

turns therefore to the workers in their capacity as producers and

2104

generators of social value, in opposition to the modern political

2105

labour parties, which for constructive economic purpose do not come

2106

into consideration." [quoted by Wayne Thorpe, "The Workers

2107

Themselves", p. 322]

2108

</blockquote>

2109

The word "syndicalism" is an English rendering of the French

2110

for "revolutionary trade unionism" ("syndicalisme revolutionarie").

2111

In the 1890s many anarchists in France started to work within the trade union

2112

movement, radicalising it from within. As the ideas of autonomy, direct

2113

action, the general strike and political independence of unions which

2114

where associated with the French Confederation Generale du Travail

2115

(CGT, or General Confederation of Labour) spread across the world (partly

2116

through anarchist contacts, partly through word of mouth by non-anarchists

2117

who were impressed by the militancy of the CGT), the word "syndicalism"

2118

was used to describe movements inspired by the example of the CGT.

2119

Thus "syndicalism," "revolutionary syndicalism" and "anarcho-syndicalism"

2120

all basically mean "revolutionary unionism" (the term "industrial unionism"

2121

used by the IWW essentially means the same thing).

2122

2123

The main difference is between revolutionary syndicalism and

2124

anarcho-syndicalism, with anarcho-syndicalism arguing that

2125

revolutionary syndicalism concentrates too much on the workplace

2126

and, obviously, stressing the anarchist roots and nature of

2127

syndicalism more than the former. In addition, anarcho-syndicalism

2128

is often considered compatible with supporting a specific anarchist

2129

organisation to complement the work of the revolutionary unions.

2130

Revolutionary syndicalism, in contrast, argues that the syndicalist

2131

unions are sufficient in themselves to create libertarian socialism

2132

and rejects anarchist groups along with political parties. However,

2133

the dividing line can be unclear and, just to complicate things even

2134

more, some syndicalists support political parties and are not

2135

anarchists (there have been a few Marxist syndicalists, for example)

2136

but we will ignore these in our discussion. We will use the term

2137

syndicalism to describe what each branch has in common.

2138

2139

The syndicalist union is a self-managed industrial union (see

2140

<a href="secJ5.html#secj52">section J.5.2</a>)

2141

which is committed to direct action and refuses

2142

links with political parties, even labour or "socialist" ones. A key

2143

idea of syndicalism is that of union autonomy -- the idea that the

2144

workers' organisation is capable of changing society by its own efforts,

2145

that it must control its own fate and not be controlled by any party

2146

or other outside group (including anarchist federations). This is

2147

sometimes termed "workerism" (from the French

2148

"ouverierisme"), i.e.

2149

workers' control of the class struggle and their own organisations.

2150

Rather than being a cross-class organisation like the political party,

2151

the union is a class organisation and is so uniquely capable of

2152

representing working class aspirations, interests and hopes. "The

2153

syndicat," Emile Pouget wrote, "groups together those who

2154

work against those who live by human exploitation: it brings together

2155

interests and not opinions." [quoted by Jeremy Jennings,

2156

Syndicalism in France, pp. 30-1] There is, then, "no place

2157

in it for anybody who was not a worker. Professional middle class

2158

intellectuals who provided both the leadership and the ideas of the

2159

socialist political movement, were therefore at a discount. As a

2160

consequence the syndicalist movement was, and saw itself as, a

2161

purely working class form of socialism." Syndicalism "appears

2162

as the great heroic movement of the proletariat, the first movement

2163

which took seriously" the argument "that the emancipation of

2164

the working class must be the task of labour unaided by middle class

2165

intellectuals or by politicians and aimed to establish a genuinely

2166

working class socialism and culture, free of all bourgeois taints.

2167

For the syndicalists, the workers were to be everything, the rest,

2168

nothing." [Geoffrey Ostergaard, The Tradition of Workers'

2169

Control, p. 38]

2170

2171

Therefore syndicalism is "consciously anti-parliamentary and

2172

anti-political. It focuses not only on the realities of power

2173

but also on the key problem of achieving its disintegration.

2174

Real power in syndicalist doctrine is economic power. The way

2175

to dissolve economic power is to make every worker powerful,

2176

thereby eliminating power as a social privilege. Syndicalism

2177

thus ruptures all the ties between the workers and the state.

2178

It opposes political action, political parties, and any

2179

participant in political elections. Indeed it refuses to

2180

operate in the framework of the established order and the

2181

state. It "turns to direct action -- strikes,

2182

sabotage, obstruction, and above all, the revolutionary general

2183

strike. Direct action not only perpetuates the militancy of the

2184

workers and keeps alive the spirit of revolt, but awakens in

2185

them a greater sense of individual initiative. By continual

2186

pressure, direct action tests the strength of the capitalist

2187

system at all times and presumably in its most important arena --

2188

the factory, where ruled and ruler seem to confront each other

2189

most directly." [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists,

2190

p. 121]

2191

2192

This does not mean that syndicalism is "apolitical" in the sense

2193

of ignoring totally all political issues. This is a Marxist myth.

2194

Syndicalists follow other anarchists by being opposed to all forms

2195

of authoritarian/capitalist politics but do take a keen interest

2196

in "political" questions as they relate to the interests of working

2197

people. Thus they do not "ignore" the state, or the role of the state.

2198

Indeed, syndicalists (like all libertarians) are well aware that the

2199

state exists to protect capitalist property and power and that we

2200

need to combat it as well as fight for economic improvements. In short,

2201

syndicalism is deeply political in the widest sense of the word,

2202

aiming for a radical change in political, economic and social

2203

conditions and institutions. Moreover, it is political in the

2204

narrower sense of being aware of political issues and aiming for

2205

political reforms along with economic ones. It is only "apolitical"

2206

when it comes to supporting political parties and using bourgeois

2207

political institutions, a position which is "political" in the wider

2208

sense of course! This is obviously identical to the usual anarchist

2209

position (see <a href="secJ2.html#secj210">section J.2.10</a>).

2210

2211

Which indicates an importance difference between syndicalism

2212

and trade unionism. Syndicalism aims at changing society rather than

2213

just working within it. Thus syndicalism is revolutionary while trade

2214

unionism is reformist. For syndicalists the union "has a double aim:

2215

with tireless persistence, it must pursue betterment of the working

2216

class's current conditions. But, without letting themselves become

2217

obsessed with this passing concern, the workers should take care to

2218

make possible and imminent the essential act of comprehensive

2219

emancipation: the expropriation of capital." Thus syndicalism

2220

aims to win reforms by direct action and by this struggle bring the

2221

possibilities of a revolution, via the general strike, closer. Indeed

2222

any "desired improvement is to be wrested directly from the capitalist"

2223

and "must always represent a reduction in capitalist privileges and be

2224

a partial expropriation." [Emile Pouget, No Gods, No Masters,

2225

vol. 2, p. 71 and p. 73] Thus Emma Goldman:

2226

2227

"Of course Syndicalism, like the old trade unions, fights for

2228

immediate gains, but it is not stupid enough to pretend that

2229

labour can expect humane conditions from inhumane economic

2230

arrangements in society. Thus it merely wrests from the enemy

2231

what it can force him to yield; on the whole, however, Syndicalism

2232

aims at, and concentrates its energies upon, the complete overthrow

2233

of the wage system.</blockquote>

2234

2235

"Syndicalism goes further: it aims to liberate labour from every

2236

institution that has not for its object the free development of

2237

production for the benefit of all humanity. In short, the ultimate

2238

purpose of Syndicalism is to reconstruct society from its present

2239

centralised, authoritative and brutal state to one based upon the

2240

free, federated grouping of the workers along lines of economic

2241

and social liberty.</blockquote>

2242

2243

"With this object in view, Syndicalism works in two directions: first,

2244

by undermining the existing institutions; secondly, by developing

2245

and educating the workers and cultivating their spirit of solidarity,

2246

to prepare them for a full, free life, when capitalism shall have been

2247

abolished.</blockquote>

2248

2249

"Syndicalism is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism."

2250

[Red Emma Speaks, p. 91]

2251

</blockquote>

2252

Which, in turn, explains why syndicalist unions are structured in

2253

such an obviously libertarian way. It reflects the

2254

importance of empowering every worker by creating a union which is

2255

decentralised and self-managed, a union which every member plays a

2256

key role in determining its policy and activities. Participation

2257

ensures that the union becomes a "school for the will" (to use

2258

Pouget's expression) and allows working people to learn how to govern

2259

themselves and so do without the state. After the revolution, the

2260

union can easily be transformed into the body by which production is

2261

organised. The aim of the union is workers' self-management of

2262

production and distribution after the revolution, a self-management

2263

which the union is based upon in the here and now. The syndicalist

2264

union is seen as "the germ of the Socialist economy of the future,

2265

the elementary school of Socialism in general" and we need to

2266

"plant these germs while there is yet time and bring them to the

2267

strongest possible development, so as to make the task of the coming

2268

social revolution easier and to insure its permanence." [Rocker,

2269

Op. Cit., p. 59]

2270

2271

Thus, as can be seen, syndicalism differs from trade unionism in

2272

its structure, its methods and its aims. Its structure, method and

2273

aims are distinctly anarchist. Little wonder leading syndicalist

2274

theorist Fernand Pelloutier argued that the trade union, "governing

2275

itself along anarchic lines," must become "a practical schooling

2276

in anarchism." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 55 and p. 57]

2277

In addition, most anarcho-syndicalists support community organisations

2278

and struggle alongside the more traditional industry based approach

2279

usually associated within syndicalism. While we have concentrated on

2280

the industrial side here (simply because this is a key aspect of

2281

syndicalism) we must stress that syndicalism can and does lend

2282

itself to community struggles. It is a myth that anarcho-syndicalism

2283

ignores community struggles and organisation, as can be seen from the

2284

history of the Spanish CNT for example (see

2285

<a href="secJ5.html#secj51">section J.5.1</a>).

2286

2287

It must be stressed that a syndicalist union is open to all

2288

workers regardless of their political opinions (or lack of them).

2289

The union exists to defend workers' interests as workers and

2290

is organised in an anarchist manner to ensure that their

2291

interests are fully expressed. This means that an syndicalist

2292

organisation is different from an organisation of syndicalists.

2293

What makes the union syndicalist is its structure, aims and

2294

methods. Obviously things can change (that is true of any

2295

organisation which has a democratic structure) but that is

2296

a test revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalists welcome and

2297

do not shirk from. As the union is self-managed from below

2298

up, its militancy and political content is determined by

2299

its membership. As Pouget put it, the union "offers employers a

2300

degree of resistance in geometric proportion with the resistance

2301

put up by its members." [Op. Cit., p. 71] That is why

2302

syndicalists ensure that power rests in the members of the union.

2303

2304

Syndicalists have two main approaches to building revolutionary

2305

unions -- "dual unionism" and "boring from

2306

within." The former

2307

approach involves creating new, syndicalist, unions, in opposition

2308

to the existing trade unions. This approach was historically

2309

and is currently the favoured way of building syndicalist unions

2310

(American, Italian, Spanish, Swedish and numerous other syndicalists

2311

built their own union federations in the heyday of syndicalism between

2312

1900 and 1920). "Boring from within" simply means working within the

2313

existing trade unions in order to reform them and make them syndicalist.

2314

This approach was favoured by French and British syndicalists, plus a few

2315

American ones. However, these two approaches are not totally in opposition.

2316

Many of the dual unions were created by syndicalists who had first worked

2317

within the existing trade unions. Once they got sick of the bureaucratic

2318

union machinery and of trying to reform it, they split from the reformist

2319

unions and formed new, revolutionary, ones. Similarly, dual unionists

2320

will happily support trade unionists in struggle and often be "two

2321

carders" (i.e. members of both the trade union and the syndicalist one).

2322

See <a href="secJ5.html#secj53">section J.5.3</a> for more on anarchist

2323

perspectives on existing trades unions.

2324

2325

Syndicalists no matter what tactics they prefer, favour

2326

autonomous workplace organisations, controlled from below. Both

2327

tend to favour syndicalists forming networks of militants to spread

2328

anarchist/syndicalist ideas within the workplace. Indeed, such a

2329

network (usually called "Industrial Networks" -- see

2330

<a href="secJ5.html#secj54">section J.5.4</a>

2331

for more details) would be an initial stage and essential means

2332

for creating syndicalist unions. These groups would encourage

2333

syndicalist tactics and rank and file organisation during

2334

struggles and so create the potential for building syndicalist

2335

unions as libertarian ideas spread and are seen to work.

2336

2337

Syndicalists think that such an organisation is essential

2338

for the successful creation of an anarchist society as it

2339

builds the new world in the shell of the old, making a sizeable

2340

majority of the population aware of anarchism and the benefits

2341

of anarchist forms of organisation and struggle. Moreover, they

2342

argue that those who reject syndicalism "because it believes in

2343

a permanent organisation of workers" and urge "workers to organise

2344

'spontaneously' at the very moment of revolution" promote a

2345

"con-trick, designed to leave 'the revolutionary movement,'

2346

so called, in the hands of an educated class . . . [or] so-called

2347

'revolutionary party' . . . [which] means that the workers are

2348

only expected to come in the fray when there's any fighting

2349

to be done, and in normal times leave theorising to the

2350

specialists or students." [Albert Meltzer, Anarchism:

2351

Arguments for and Against, pp. 82-3] A self-managed

2352

society can only be created by

2353

self-managed means, and as only the practice of self-management

2354

can ensure its success, the need for libertarian popular

2355

organisations is essential. Syndicalism is seen as the key

2356

way working people can prepare themselves for revolution and

2357

learn to direct their own lives. In this way syndicalism

2358

creates a true politics of the people,

2359

one that does not create a parasitic class of politicians and

2360

bureaucrats ("We wish to emancipate ourselves, to free ourselves",

2361

Pelloutier wrote, "but we do not wish to carry out a revolution,

2362

to risk our skin, to put Pierre the socialist in the place of

2363

Paul the radical" [quoted by Jeremy Jennings, Syndicalism

2364

in France, p. 17]).

2365

2366

This does not mean that syndicalists do not support organisations

2367

spontaneously created by workers' in struggle (such as workers'

2368

councils, factory committees and so on). Far from it. Syndicalists

2369

have played important roles in these kinds of organisation (as can

2370

be seen from the Russian Revolution, the factory occupations in

2371

Italy in 1920, the British Shop Steward movement and so on). This is

2372

because syndicalism acts as a catalyst to militant labour

2373

struggles and serves to counteract class-collaborationist

2374

tendencies by union bureaucrats and "socialist" politicians.

2375

Part of this activity must involve encouraging self-managed

2376

organisations where none exist and so syndicalists support

2377

and encourage all such spontaneous movements, hoping that

2378

they turn into the basis of a syndicalist union movement or

2379

a successful revolution. Moreover, most anarcho-syndicalists

2380

recognise that it is unlikely that every worker, nor even

2381

the majority, will be in syndicalist unions before a

2382

revolutionary period starts. This means new organisations,

2383

created spontaneously by workers in struggle, would have to be

2384

the framework of social struggle and the post-capitalist society

2385

rather than the syndicalist union as such. All the syndicalist

2386

union can do is provide a practical example of how to organise

2387

in a libertarian way within capitalism and statism and support

2388

spontaneously created organisations.

2389

2390

It should be noted that while the term "syndicalism" dates

2391

from the 1890s in France, the ideas associated with these names

2392

have a longer history. Anarcho-syndicalist ideas have developed

2393

independently in many different countries and times. Indeed, anyone

2394

familiar with Bakunin's work will quickly see that much of his

2395

ideas prefigure what was latter to become known by these terms.

2396

Similarly, we find that the American International Working

2397

People's Association organised by anarchists in the 1880s

2398

"anticipated by some twenty years the doctrine of anarcho-syndicalism"

2399

and "[m]ore than merely resembling the 'Chicago Idea' [of the

2400

IWPA], the IWW's principles of industrial unionism resulted

2401

from the conscious efforts of anarchists . . . who continued to affirm

2402

. . . the principles which the Chicago anarchists gave their lives

2403

defending." [Salvatore Salerno, Red November, Black November,

2404

p. 51 and p. 79] See <a href="secH2.html#sech28">section H.2.8</a> for

2405

a discussion of why Marxist claims that syndicalism and anarchism are

2406

unrelated are obviously false.

2407

2408

(We must stress that we are not arguing that Bakunin

2409

"invented" syndicalism. Far from it. Rather, we are arguing

2410

that Bakunin expressed ideas already developed in working

2411

class circles and became, if you like, the "spokesperson"

2412

for these libertarian tendencies in the labour movement as

2413

well as helping to clarifying these ideas in many ways.

2414

As Emma Goldman argued, the "feature which distinguishes

2415

Syndicalism from most philosophies is that it represents

2416

the revolutionary philosophy of labour conceived and born

2417

in the actual struggle and experience of workers themselves

2418

-- not in universities, colleges, libraries, or in the

2419

brain of some scientists." [Op. Cit., pp. 88-9] This

2420

applies equally to Bakunin and the first International).

2421

2422

Given this, we must also point out here that while syndicalism has

2423

anarchist roots, not all syndicalists are anarchists. A few Marxists

2424

have been syndicalists, particularly in the USA where the followers

2425

of Daniel De Leon supported Industrial Unionism and helped form the

2426

Industrial Workers of the World. The Irish socialist James

2427

Connelly was also a Marxist-syndicalist, as was Big Bill Haywood who

2428

was a leader of the IWW and a leading member of the US Socialist

2429

Party. Marxist-syndicalists are generally in favour of more centralisation

2430

within syndicalist unions (the IWW was by far the most centralised

2431

syndicalist union) and often argue that a political party is required to

2432

complement the work of the union. Needless to say, anarcho-syndicalists

2433

disagree, arguing that centralisation kills the spirit of revolt and

2434

weakens a unions real strength and that political parties are both

2435

ineffective when compared to militant unionism and a constant source

2436

of corruption. [Rocker, Op. Cit., pp. 55-60] So not all

2437

syndicalists are anarchists, leading those anarchists who are

2438

syndicalists often use the term "anarcho-syndicalism" to indicate that

2439

they are both anarchists and syndicalists as well as to stress the

2440

libertarian roots and syndicalism. In addition, not all anarchists

2441

are syndicalists. We discuss the reasons for this in the

2442

<a href="secJ3.html#secj39">next section</a>.

2443

2444

For more information on anarcho-syndicalist ideas, Rudolf Rocker's

2445

Anarcho-Syndicalism is still the classic introduction to the

2446

subject. The collection of articles by British syndicalist Tom Brown

2447

entitled Syndicalism is also worth reading. Daniel Guerin's

2448

No Gods, No Masters contains articles by leading French

2449

syndicalist thinkers.

2450

2451

2452

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

2453

2454

2455

Before discussing why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists,

2456

we must clarify a few points first. Let us be clear, non-syndicalist

2457

anarchists usually support the ideas of workplace organisation and

2458

struggle, of direct action, of solidarity and so on. Thus most

2459

non-syndicalist anarchists do not disagree with anarcho-syndicalists

2460

on these issues. Indeed, many even support the creation of syndicalist

2461

unions. Thus many anarcho-communists like Alexander Berkman, Errico

2462

Malatesta and Emma Goldman supported anarcho-syndicalist organisations

2463

and even, like Malatesta, helped form such revolutionary union

2464

federations (namely, the FORA in Argentina) and urged

2465

anarchists to take a leading role in organising unions. So when

2466

we use the term "non-syndicalist anarchist" we are not suggesting

2467

that these anarchists reject all aspects of anarcho-syndicalism.

2468

Rather, they are critical of certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalist

2469

ideas while supporting the rest.

2470

2471

In the past, a few communist-anarchists did oppose the struggle for

2472

improvements within capitalism as "reformist." However, these were

2473

few and far between and with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism in the

2474

1890s, the vast majority of communist-anarchists recognised that

2475

only by encouraging the struggle for reforms would people take them

2476

seriously as this showed the benefits of anarchist tactics and

2477

organisation in practice so ensuring anarchist ideas grow in influence. Thus

2478

syndicalism was a healthy response to the rise of "abstract revolutionarism"

2479

that infected the anarchist movement during the 1880s, particularly in

2480

France and Italy. Thus communist-anarchists agree with syndicalists

2481

on the importance of struggling for and winning reforms and

2482

improvements within capitalism by direct action and solidarity.

2483

2484

Similarly, anarchists like Malatesta also recognised the importance of

2485

mass organisations like unions. As he argued, "to encourage popular

2486

organisations of all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic

2487

ideas . . . An authoritarian party, which aims at capturing power

2488

to impose its ideas, has an interest in the people remaining an

2489

amorphous mass, unable to act for themselves and therefore easily

2490

dominated . . . But we anarchists do not want to emancipate the

2491

people; we want the people to emancipate themselves . . . we

2492

want the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people and

2493

correspond to the state of their development and advance as they

2494

advance." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 90]

2495

This can only occur when there are popular organisations, like

2496

trade unions, within which people can express themselves, come to

2497

common agreements and act. Moreover, these organisations must be

2498

autonomous, self-governing, be libertarian in nature and be

2499

independent of all parties and organisations (including anarchist

2500

ones). The similarity with anarcho-syndicalist ideas is striking.

2501

2502

So why, if this is the case, are many anarchists not

2503

anarcho-syndicalists? There are two main reasons for this.

2504

First, there is the question of whether unions are, by their

2505

nature, revolutionary organisations. Second, whether syndicalist

2506

unions are sufficient to create anarchy by themselves. We will

2507

discuss each in turn.

2508

2509

As can be seen from any country, the vast majority of unions are deeply

2510

reformist and bureaucratic in nature. They are centralised, with power

2511

resting at the top in the hands of officials. This suggests that in

2512

themselves unions are not revolutionary. As Malatesta argued, this

2513

is to be expected for "all movements founded on material and immediate

2514

interests (and a mass working class movement cannot be founded on

2515

anything else), if the ferment, the drive and the unremitting efforts

2516

of men [and women] of ideas struggling and making sacrifices for an

2517

ideal future are lacking, tend to adapt themselves to circumstances,

2518

foster a conservative spirit, and fear of change in those who manage

2519

to improve their conditions, and often end up by creating new

2520

privileged classes and serving to support and consolidate the

2521

system one would want to destroy." [Op. Cit., pp. 113-4]

2522

2523

If we look at the role of the union within capitalist society we

2524

see that in order for it to work, it must offer a reason for the boss

2525

to recognise and negotiate with it. This means that the union must

2526

be able to offer the boss something in return for any reforms it gets,

2527

namely labour discipline. In return for an improvement in wages or

2528

conditions, the union must be able to get workers to agree to submit

2529

to the contracts the union signs with their boss. In other words, they

2530

must be able to control their members -- stop them fighting the boss --

2531

if they are to have anything with which to bargain with. This results

2532

in the union becoming a third force in industry, with interests

2533

separate than the workers which it claims to represent. The role

2534

of unionism as a seller of labour power means that it often has

2535

to make compromises, compromises it has to make its members

2536

agree to. This necessities a tendency for power to be taken from

2537

the rank and file of the unions and centralised in the hands of

2538

officials at the top of the organisation. This ensures that "the

2539

workers organisation becomes what it must perforce be in a

2540

capitalist society -- a means not of refusing to recognise and

2541

overthrowing the bosses, but simply for hedging round and

2542

limiting the bosses' power." [Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist

2543

Revolution, p. 29]

2544

2545

Anarcho-syndicalists are aware of this problem. That is why their

2546

unions are decentralised, self-managed and organised from the

2547

bottom up in a federal manner. As Durruti argued:

2548

2549

"No anarchists in the union committees unless at the ground level.

2550

In these committees, in case of conflict with the boss, the militant

2551

is forced to compromise to arrive at an agreement. The contracts

2552

and activities which come from being in this position, push the

2553

militant towards bureaucracy. Conscious of this risk, we do not

2554

wish to run it. Our role is to analyse from the bottom the different

2555

dangers which can beset a union organisation like ours. No

2556

militant should prolong his job in committees, beyond the time

2557

allotted to him. No permanent and indispensable people."

2558

[quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, p. 183]

2559

</blockquote>

2560

However, structure is rarely enough in itself to undermine the

2561

bureaucratic tendencies created by the role of unions in the

2562

capitalist economy. While such libertarian structures can slow

2563

down the tendency towards bureaucracy, non-syndicalist

2564

anarchists argue that they cannot stop it. They point to

2565

the example of the French CGT which had become reformist

2566

by 1914 (the majority of other syndicalist unions were crushed

2567

by fascism or communism before they had a chance to develop

2568

fully). Even the Spanish CNT (by far the most successful

2569

anarcho-syndicalist union) suffered from the problem of

2570

reformism, causing the anarchists in the union to organise

2571

the FAI in 1927 to combat it (which it did, very successfully).

2572

According to Jose Peirats, the "participation of the anarchist

2573

group in the mass movement CNT helped to ensure that CNT's

2574

revolutionary nature." This indicates the validity of Malatesta's

2575

arguments concerning the need for anarchists to remain distinct of

2576

the unions organisationally while working within them -- just as

2577

Peirat's comment that "[b]linkered by participation in union

2578

committees, the FAI became incapable of a wider vision" indicates

2579

the validity of Malatesta's warnings against anarchists taking

2580

positions of responsibility in unions! [Anarchists in the

2581

Spanish Revolution, p. 241 and pp. 239-40]

2582

2583

Moreover, even the structure of syndicalist unions can cause

2584

problems: "In modelling themselves structurally on the bourgeois

2585

economy, the syndicalist unions tended to become the organisational

2586

counterparts of the very centralised apparatus they professed to

2587

oppose. By pleading the need to deal effectively with the tightly

2588

knit bourgeoisie and state machinery, reformist leaders in

2589

syndicalist unions often had little difficulty in shifting

2590

organisational control from the bottom to the top." [Murray

2591

Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 123]

2592

2593

In addition, as the syndicalist unions grow in size and influence their

2594

initial radicalism is usually watered-down. This is because, "since

2595

the unions must remain open to all those who desire to win from

2596

the masters better conditions of life, whatever their opinions may

2597

be . . ., they are naturally led to moderate their aspirations,

2598

first so that they should not frighten away those they wish to have

2599

with them, and because, in proportion as numbers increase, those

2600

with ideas who have initiated the movement remain buried in

2601

a majority that is only occupied with the petty interests of

2602

the moment." [Errico Malatesta, Anarchism and Syndicalism,

2603

p. 150] Which, ironically given that increased self-management is

2604

seen as a way of reducing tendencies towards bureaucracy, means

2605

that syndicalist unions have a tendency towards reformism simply

2606

because the majority of their members will be non-revolutionary

2607

if the union grows in size in non-revolutionary times (as can

2608

be seen from the development of the Swedish syndicalist union

2609

the SAC).

2610

2611

So, if the union's militant strategy succeeds in winning reforms,

2612

more and more workers will join it. This influx of non-libertarians

2613

must, in a self-managed organisation, exert a de-radicalising

2614

influence on the unions politics and activities in

2615

non-revolutionary times. The syndicalist would argue that the

2616

process of struggling for reforms combined with the educational

2617

effects of participation and self-management will reduce this

2618

influence and, of course, they are right. However, non-syndicalist

2619

anarchists would counter this by arguing that the libertarian influences

2620

generated by struggle and participation would be strengthened by the

2621

work of anarchist groups and, without this work, the de-radicalising

2622

influences would outweigh the libertarian ones. In addition, the

2623

success of a syndicalist union must be partly determined by the

2624

general level of class struggle. In periods of great struggle, the

2625

membership will be more radical than in quiet periods and it is

2626

quiet periods which cause the most difficulties for syndicalist unions.

2627

With a moderate membership the revolutionary aims and tactics of

2628

the union will also become moderate. As one academic writer on

2629

French syndicalism put it, syndicalism "was always based on workers

2630

acting in the economic arena to better their conditions, build

2631

class consciousness, and prepare for revolution. The need to survive

2632

and build a working-class movement had always forced syndicalists

2633

to adapt themselves to the exigencies of the moment." [Barbara

2634

Mitchell, "French Syndicalism: An Experiment in Practical Anarchism",

2635

pp. 25-41, Revolutionary Syndicalism, Marcel van der Linden and

2636

Wayne Thorpe (eds.), p. 25]

2637

2638

As can be seen from the history of many syndicalist unions (and,

2639

obviously, mainstream unions too) this seems to be the case -- the

2640

libertarian tendencies are outweighed by the de-radicalising ones.

2641

This can also be seen from the issue of collective bargaining:

2642

2643

"The problem of collective bargaining foreshadowed the difficulty

2644

of maintaining syndicalist principles in developed capitalist

2645

societies. Many organisations within the international syndicalist

2646

movement initially repudiated collective agreements with employers

2647

on the grounds that by a collaborative sharing of responsibility

2648

for work discipline, such agreements would expand bureaucratisation

2649

within the unions, undermine revolutionary spirit, and restrict

2650

the freedom of action that workers were always to maintain

2651

against the class enemy. From an early date, however, sometimes

2652

after a period of suspicion and resistance, many workers gave

2653

up this position. In the early decades of the century it

2654

became clear that to maintain or gain a mass membership,

2655

syndicalist unions had to accept collective bargaining."

2656

[Marcel van der Linden and Wayne Thorpe, Op. Cit., p. 19]

2657

</blockquote>

2658

Thus, for most anarchists, "the Trade Unions are, by their

2659

very nature reformist and never revolutionary. The revolutionary

2660

spirit must be introduced, developed and maintained by the constant

2661

actions of revolutionaries who work from within their ranks as well

2662

as from outside, but it cannot be the normal, natural definition of

2663

the Trade Unions function." [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta:

2664

His Life and Ideas, p. 117]

2665

2666

This does not mean that anarchists should not work within labour

2667

organisations. Nor does it mean rejecting anarcho-syndicalist

2668

unions as an anarchist tactic. Far from it. Rather it is a case

2669

of recognising these organisations for what they are, reformist

2670

organisations which are not an end in themselves but one (albeit,

2671

important) means of preparing the way for the achievement

2672

of anarchism. Neither does it mean that anarchists should not try

2673

to make labour organisations as anarchistic as possible or have

2674

anarchist objectives. Working within the labour movement (at the

2675

rank and file level, of course) is essential to gain influence for

2676

anarchist ideas, just as is working with unorganised workers. But

2677

this does not mean that the unions are revolutionary by their

2678

very nature, as syndicalism implies. As history shows, and

2679

as syndicalists themselves are aware, the vast majority of unions

2680

are reformist. Non-syndicalist anarchists argue there is a reason

2681

for that and syndicalist unions are not immune to these tendencies

2682

just because they call themselves revolutionary. Due to these

2683

tendencies, non-syndicalist anarchists stress the need to organise

2684

as anarchists first and foremost in order to influence the class

2685

struggle and encourage the creation of autonomous workplace and

2686

community organisations to fight that struggle. Rather than fuse

2687

the anarchist and working class movement, non-syndicalist anarchists

2688

stress the importance of anarchists organising as anarchists to

2689

influence the working class movement.

2690

2691

All this does not mean that purely anarchist organisations or

2692

individual anarchists cannot become reformist. Of course they

2693

can (just look at the Spanish FAI which along with the CNT

2694

co-operated with the state during the Spanish Revolution).

2695

However, unlike syndicalist unions, the anarchist organisation

2696

is not pushed towards reformism due to its role within

2697

society. That is an important difference -- the institutional

2698

factors are not present for the anarchist federation as they

2699

are for the syndicalist union federation.

2700

2701

The second reason why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists

2702

is the question of whether syndicalist unions are sufficient in

2703

themselves to create anarchy. Pierre Monatte, a French syndicalist,

2704

argued that "Syndicalism, as the [CGT's] Congress of Amiens

2705

proclaimed in 1906, is sufficient unto itself" as "the working

2706

class, having at last attained majority, means to be self-sufficient

2707

and to rely on no-one else for its emancipation." [The Anarchist

2708

Reader, p. 219]

2709

2710

This idea of self-sufficiency means that the anarchist and the syndicalist

2711

movement must be fused into one, with syndicalism taking the role of

2712

both anarchist group and labour union. Thus a key difference between

2713

anarcho-syndicalists and other anarchists is over the question of the

2714

need for a specifically anarchist organisation. While most anarchists

2715

are sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism, few totally subscribe to

2716

anarcho-syndicalist ideas in their pure form. This is because, in

2717

its pure form, syndicalism rejects the idea of anarchist groups

2718

and instead considers the union as the focal point of social

2719

struggle and anarchist activism. However, an anarcho-syndicalist may

2720

support a specific anarchist federation to work within the union and

2721

outside.

2722

2723

So anarchists critical of anarcho-syndicalism are also active in

2724

the labour movement, working with the rank and file while keeping

2725

their own identity as anarchists and organising as anarchists. Thus

2726

Malatesta: "In the past I deplored that the comrades isolated

2727

themselves from the working-class movement. Today I deplore that

2728

many of us, falling into the contrary extreme, let themselves be

2729

swallowed up in the same movement." [Op. Cit.,

2730

p. 225] In the eyes of other anarchists anarcho-syndicalism in its

2731

"pure" (revolutionary syndicalist) form makes the error of confusing

2732

the anarchist and union movement and so ensures that the resulting

2733

movement can do neither work well: "Every fusion or confusion

2734

between the anarchist movement and the trade union movement ends,

2735

either in rendering the later unable to carry out its specific task

2736

or by weakening, distorting, or extinguishing the anarchist spirit."

2737

[Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 123]

2738

2739

Most anarchists agree with Malatesta when he argued that "anarchists

2740

must not want the Trade Unions to be anarchist, but they must act

2741

within their ranks in favour of anarchist aims, as individuals, as

2742

groups and as federations of groups. . . [I]n the situation as it is,

2743

and recognising that the social development of one's workmates

2744

is what it is, the anarchist groups should not expect the workers'

2745

organisation to act as if they were anarchist, but should make

2746

every effort to induce them to approximate as much as possible

2747

to the anarchist method." [Op. Cit., pp. 124-5] Given

2748

that it appears to be the case that labour unions are by nature

2749

reformist, they cannot be expected to be enough in themselves

2750

when creating a free society. Hence the need for anarchists to

2751

organise as anarchists as well as alongside their fellow workers

2752

as workers in order to spread anarchist ideas on tactics and aims.

2753

This activity within existing unions does not necessarily mean

2754

attempting to "reform" the union in a libertarian manner (although

2755

some anarchists would support this approach). Rather it means

2756

working with the rank and file of the unions and trying to

2757

create autonomous workplace organisations, independent of

2758

the trade union bureaucracy and organised in a libertarian way.

2759

2760

This involves creating anarchist organisations separate from but

2761

which (in part) work within the labour movement for anarchist

2762

ends. Let us not forget that the syndicalist organisation is the

2763

union, it organises all workers regardless of their politics. A

2764

"union" which just let anarchists join would not be a union,

2765

it would be an anarchist group organised in the workplace. As

2766

anarcho-syndicalists themselves are aware, an anarcho-syndicalist

2767

union is not the same as a union of anarcho-syndicalists. How can

2768

we expect an organisation made up of non-anarchists be totally

2769

anarchist? Due to this, tendencies always appeared within syndicalist

2770

unions that were reformist and because of this most anarchists,

2771

including many anarcho-syndicalists we must note, argue that

2772

there is a need for anarchists to work within the rank and file

2773

of the unions to spread their anarchist ideals and aims, and this

2774

implies anarchist organisations separate from the labour movement,

2775

even if that movement is based on syndicalist unions.

2776

2777

As Bakunin argued, the anarchist organisation "is the necessary

2778

complement to the International [i.e. the union federation]. But

2779

the International and the Alliance [the anarchist federation],

2780

while having the same ultimate aims, perform different functions.

2781

The International endeavours to unify the working masses . . .

2782

regardless of nationality or religious and political beliefs,

2783

into one compact body: the Alliance, on the other hand, tries

2784

to give these masses a really revolutionary direction." This

2785

did not mean that the Alliance was imposing a foreign theory

2786

onto the members of the unions, because the "programs of one

2787

and the other . . . differ only in the degree of their

2788

revolutionary development . . . The program of the Alliance

2789

represents the fullest unfolding of the International."

2790

[Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 157] Nor did it imply that

2791

anarchists think that unions and other forms of popular organisations

2792

should be controlled by anarchists. Far from it! Anarchists are the

2793

strongest supporters of the autonomy of all popular organisations. As

2794

we indicated in <a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a>,

2795

anarchists desire to influence popular

2796

organisations by the strength of our ideas within the rank and

2797

file and not by imposing our ideas on them.

2798

2799

In addition to these major points of disagreement, there are minor ones

2800

as well. For example, many anarchists dislike the emphasis syndicalists

2801

place on the workplace and see "in syndicalism a shift in focus from the

2802

commune to the trade union, from all of the oppressed to the industrial

2803

proletariat alone, from the streets to the factories, and, in emphasis at

2804

least, from insurrection to the general strike." [Bookchin,

2805

Op. Cit., p. 123] However, most anarcho-syndicalists are

2806

well aware that life exists outside the workplace and so this disagreement

2807

is largely one of emphasis. Similarly, many anarchists disagreed with the

2808

early syndicalist argument that a general strike was enough to create a

2809

revolution. They argued, with Malatesta in the forefront, that while a

2810

general strike would be "an excellent means for starting the social

2811

revolution" it would be wrong to think that it made "armed

2812

insurrection unnecessary" since the "first to die of hunger during

2813

a general strike would not be the bourgeois, who dispose of all the stores,

2814

but the workers." In order for this not to occur, the workers

2815

would need to "take over production" which are protected by the

2816

police and armed forces and this meant "insurrection." [Malatesta,

2817

The Anarchist Reader, pp. 223-4] Again, however, most modern

2818

syndicalists accept this to be the case and see the "expropriatory

2819

general strike," in the words of French syndicalist Pierre Besnard,

2820

as "clearly insurrectional." [quoted by Vernon Richards,

2821

Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 288] We mention this

2822

purely to counter Leninist claims that syndicalists subscribe to the

2823

same ones they did in the 1890s.

2824

2825

Despite our criticisms we should recognise that the difference between

2826

anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are slight and (often) just a case

2827

of emphasis. Most anarchists support anarcho-syndicalist unions where

2828

they exist and often take a key role in creating and organising them.

2829

Similarly, many self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists also support

2830

specific organisations of anarchists to work within and outwith the

2831

syndicalist union. Syndicalist unions, where they exist, are far

2832

more progressive than any other union. Not only are they democratic

2833

unions and create an atmosphere where anarchist ideas are listened

2834

to with respect but they also organise and fight in a way that breaks

2835

down the divisions into leaders and led, doers and watchers. On its

2836

own this is very good but not good enough. For non-syndicalist

2837

anarchists, the missing element is an organisation winning support

2838

for anarchist ideas and tactics both within revolutionary unions and

2839

everywhere else working class people come together.

2840

2841

For a further information on the anarchist criticism of syndicalism, we

2842

can suggest no better source than the writings of Errico Malatesta.

2843

The books Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas and The

2844

Anarchist Revolution contain Malatesta's viewpoints on anarchism,

2845

syndicalism and how anarchists should work within the labour movement.

2846

The Anarchist Reader contains the famous debate between the

2847

syndicalist Pierre Monatte and Malatesta at the International

2848

Anarchist conference in Amsterdam in 1907.

2849

2850

2851

</body>

2852

</html>

b'\\ No newline at end of file'