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

1

Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's Marxism and direct action

2

3

Phil Mitchinson essay [1]Marxism and direct action attempts to provide

4

a "Marxist" (i.e. Leninist/Trotskyist) critique of the current "Direct

5

Action" based groups which came to notice at various demonstrations

6

across the world -- most famously in Seattle, November 1999. He,

7

correctly, links these groups and currents with anarchism. However, his

8

"critique" is nothing but a self-contradictory collection of false

9

assertions, lies and nonsense, as we shall prove (indeed, his

10

"critique" seems more the product of envy at anarchist influence in

11

these movements than the product of scholarship or objectivity). That

12

is why we have decided to reply to his article -- it gives us an ideal

13

possibility to indicate the depths to which some Marxists will swoop to

14

distort anarchist politics and movements.

15

16

1. How does Mitchinson impoverish the politics of the direct action groups?

17

18

He begins by noting that the "recent anti-capitalist demonstrations

19

have brought together many different groups protesting against the

20

destruction of the environment, racism, the exploitation of the third

21

world, and also many ordinary young people protesting at the state of

22

things in general. They have certainly shattered the myth that everyone

23

is happy and that the capitalist system is accepted as the only

24

possible form of society." Of course, this is correct. What he fails to

25

mention is that these demonstrations and groups managed to do this

26

without the "guidance" of any Leninist party -- indeed, the vanguard

27

parties are noticeable by their absence and their frantic efforts to

28

catch up with these movements. This, of course, is not the first time

29

this has happened. Looking at every revolution we discover the

30

"revolutionary" parties either playing no role in their early stages or

31

a distinctly counter-productive role.

32

33

He states that "[a]ll around us we see the misery this system causes.

34

Famine, war, unemployment, homelessness and despair, these are the

35

violent acts that the system perpetrates against millions every day."

36

However, as much as these aspects of capitalism are terrible, the

37

anti-capitalist revolt expressed by many within the direct action

38

groups is much wider than this (standard) leftist list. The movements,

39

or at least parts of them, have a much more radical critique of the

40

evils of capitalism -- one that bases it self on abolishing alienation,

41

domination, wage slavery, oppression, exploitation, the spiritual as

42

well as material poverty of everyday life, by means of self-management,

43

autonomy, self-organisation and direct action. They raise the

44

possibility of playful, meaningful, empowering and productive

45

self-activity to replace "tedious, over-tiring jobs" as well as the

46

vision of a libertarian communist (i.e. moneyless, stateless) society.

47

Mitchinson's account of the movements he is trying to critique is as

48

poverty stricken intellectually as the capitalist system these

49

movements are challenging. Leninists like Mitchinson, instead of a

50

swallowing a dose of humility and learning from the very different ways

51

this new wave of protest is being framed, are trying to squeeze the

52

protest into their own particular one-dimensional model of revolution.

53

Being unable to understand the movements he is referring to, he pushes

54

their vision into the narrow confines of his ideology and distorts it.

55

56

He goes on to state that "[w]itnessing and experiencing this

57

destruction and chaos, young people everywhere are driven to protest."

58

Of course, anyone who is part of these movements will tell you that a

59

wide cross-section of age groups are involved, not just "young people."

60

However, Mitchinson's comments on age are not surprising -- ever since

61

Lenin, Bolshevik inspired Marxists have attributed other, more radical,

62

political theories, analyses and visions to the alleged youth of those

63

who hold these opinions (in spite of the facts). In other words, these

64

ideas, they claim, are the produce of immaturity, inexperience and

65

youth and will, hopefully, be grown out of. Just as many parents mutter

66

to themselves that their anarchist (or socialist, homosexual, whatever)

67

children will "grow out of it", Lenin and his followers like Mitchinson

68

consider themselves as the wiser, older relations (perhaps a friendly

69

Uncle or a Big Brother?) of these "young" rebels and hope they will

70

"grow out of" their infantile politics.

71

72

The word patronising does not do Mitchinson justice!

73

74

2. Does anarchism "juxtapose" theory and action?

75

76

Now Mitchinson launches into his first strawman of his essay. He

77

asserts:

78

79

"However, the idea of getting involved in a political organisation

80

is a turn off for many, who understandably want to do something, and

81

do something now. In reality, the attempt to juxtapose organisation,

82

discussion, and debate with 'direct action' is pure sophistry."

83

84

We are not aware of any anarchist or direct action group which does not

85

discuss and debate their actions, the rationale of their actions and

86

the aims of their actions. These demonstrations that "young people"

87

apparently turn up at are, in fact, organised by groups who have

88

meetings, discuss their ideas, their objectives, their politics, and so

89

on. That much should be obvious. In reality, it is Mitchinson who

90

expresses "pure sophistry," not the "many" who he claims act without

91

thinking. And, of course, he fails to mention the two days of meetings,

92

discussion and debate which took place the Saturday/Sunday before the

93

May Day actions in London. To mention the May Day 2000 conference would

94

confuse the reader with facts and so goes unmentioned.

95

96

He then asserts that the "ideas of Marxism are not the subject of

97

academic study, they are precisely a guide to action." Of course, we

98

have to point out here that the Marxist Parties Mitchinson urges us to

99

build did not take part in organising the actions he praises (a few

100

members of these parties did come along, on some of them, to sell

101

papers, of course, but this is hardly a "vanguard" role). In general,

102

the vanguard parties were noticeable by their absence or, at best,

103

their lack of numbers and involvement. If we judge people by what they

104

do, rather than what they say (as Marx urged), then we must draw the

105

conclusion that the Marxism of Mitchinson is a guide to inaction rather

106

than action.

107

108

Mitchinson continues by stating Marxists "are all in favour of action,

109

but it must be clearly thought out, with definite aims and objectives

110

if it is to succeed. Otherwise we end up with directionless action." It

111

would be impolite to point out that no anarchist or member of a direct

112

action organisation would disagree with this statement. Every

113

anti-capitalist demonstration has had a definite aim and objective, was

114

clearly thought out and organised. It did not "just happen." Mitchinson

115

presents us with a strawman so fragile that even a breeze of reality

116

would make it disintegrate.

117

118

The question is, of course, what kind of organisation do we create, how

119

do we determine our aims and objectives. That is the key question, one

120

that Mitchinson hides behind the strawman of organisation versus

121

non-organisation, planned action versus "directionless action." To

122

state it bluntly, the question is actually one of do we organise in an

123

authoritarian manner or a libertarian manner, not whether or not we

124

organise. Mitchinson may not see the difference (in which case he

125

thinks all organisation is "authoritarian") but for anarchists and

126

members of direct action groups the difference is vital.

127

128

He goes on to state:

129

130

"Furthermore without political organisation who decides what action

131

is to be taken, when and where? There can be no greater direct

132

action than the seizing of control over our own lives by the vast

133

majority of society. In that act lies the essence of revolution. Not

134

just an aimless 'direct action' but mass, democratic and conscious

135

action, the struggle not just against capitalism, but for a new form

136

of society, socialism."

137

138

Again Mitchinson presents us with the strawman of "conscious" action

139

verses "aimless" action. As noted above, the anti-capitalist

140

demonstrations were organised -- non-hierarchical groups decided

141

collectively what action was to be organised, when and where. The real

142

question is not organisation versus non-organisation but rather

143

authoritarian versus libertarian organisation. Either decision making

144

from the bottom up or decision making from the top-down. As for there

145

bring "no greater direct action" than revolution, well, anarchists have

146

been saying that for over one hundred years -- we don't need a Marxist

147

to tell us our own ideas!

148

149

3. How does Mitchinson distort the London May Day demo?

150

151

He then gets to the crux of the issue -- "So, what comes next?" He goes

152

on to assert:

153

154

"The organisers of the demo tell us this was not a protest in order

155

to secure changes, reforms apparently are a waste of time. No,

156

simply by participating in what they call the 'carnival' we become

157

better people, and eventually more and more people will participate,

158

until a critical mass is reached and we all ignore capitalism, don't

159

pay our bills, until they go away. What an infantile flight of

160

fancy!"

161

162

Yes, indeed, what an infantile flight of fancy! However, the flight is

163

purely Mitchinson's. No one in RTS (or any other anarchist) makes such

164

a claim. Yes, RTS urged people to take part in a carnival -- as they

165

argue, "[m]any of the great moments of revolutionary history were

166

carnivalesque . . . But we are not waiting for these moments of

167

carnivalesque revolution, we are trying to merge them into every moment

168

of everyday life. We cannot live on one-off days, a letting of stream,

169

safety values for society enabling life to return to normal the next

170

day or for hierarchical domination to return, as did in so many

171

historical revolutions. Revolution is not an act but a process and

172

carnival can prepare us for this process." [Maybe, p. 9] Thus

173

"carnival" is not seen as an end to itself (as Mitchinson asserts) but

174

rather an aid to the creation of a revolutionary movement. Mitchinson

175

confuses a celebration of May Day with an insurrection! In the words of

176

Maybe:

177

178

"And although Mayday is just one day, it seeks to incite continuous

179

creativity and action towards a radical remaking of everyday life.

180

Steeped in a history of daily struggle, of 'day in day out'

181

organising for social change, but pulsating with the celebration of

182

renewal and fresh hope that returns with the coming of summer.

183

Mayday will always be a pivotal moment." [Maybe, p. 5]

184

185

Maybe is clear -- we need to organise the daily struggle and enjoy

186

ourselves while we are at it. Mitchinson' distortion of that message is

187

pitiful.

188

189

4. Do anarchists really think "the bosses will do nothing to defend their

190

system"?

191

192

He continues:

193

194

"The genuine intentions of those protesting is not open to question.

195

However, the way to hell is paved with many such good intentions.

196

Are we really to believe that whilst we all 'place ourselves outside

197

of capitalism', the bosses will do nothing to defend their system?

198

This ostrich like tactic of burying our heads in the sand until they

199

go away is not serious. Nor is it action. In reality, it is

200

irresponsible, indirect inaction."

201

202

The comment about "indirect inaction" is somewhat funny coming from a

203

political tendency which did not produce a movement of the importance

204

of Seattle 1999 and is now trying to recruit from it. But it would be

205

interesting to discover in which anarchist work comes the notion that

206

we do not think the bosses will not defend their system. Yes, Lenin did

207

claim that anarchists would "lay down their arms" after a revolution,

208

but as Murray Bookchin notes, anarchists are "not so naive as to

209

believe anarchism could be established overnight. In imputing this

210

notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted the Russian

211

anarchist's views. Nor did the anarchists . . . believe that the

212

abolition of the state involved 'laying down arms' immediately after

213

the revolution. . ." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 213] Bakunin, for

214

example, thought the "Commune would be organised by the standing

215

federation of the Barricades" and that "the federation of insurgent

216

associations, communes and provinces . . . [would] organise a

217

revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction . . . it is the very

218

fact of the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the

219

purpose of self-defence among the insurgent areas that will bring about

220

the triumph of the revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p.

221

170 and p. 171]

222

223

Moreover, RTS actions have continually came into conflict with the

224

state and its forces of defence. Mitchinson seems to think that the

225

participants of RTS and its demonstrations are incapable of actually

226

understanding and learning from their experiences -- they have seen and

227

felt the capitalist system defending itself. Anyone on the J18, N30,

228

A16 or M1 demos or just watching them on TV would have seen the

229

capitalist system defending itself with vigour -- and the protestors

230

fighting back. Rather than acknowledge the obvious, Mitchinson asserts

231

nonsense. The only person burying their head in the sand is Mitchinson

232

if he ignores the experiences of his own senses (and the basic

233

principles of materialism) in favour of an ideological diatribe with no

234

basis in reality.

235

236

What is "irresponsible" is misrepresenting the viewpoints of your

237

enemies and expecting them not to point our your errors.

238

239

5. How does Mitchinson misrepresent anarchist organisation?

240

241

Mitchinson now moves onto the real enemy, anarchism. He asserts that:

242

243

"Anarchist organisations have always hidden behind a facade of

244

'self-organisation'. They claim to have no leaders, no policy etc.

245

Yet who decides?"

246

247

Yes, anarchist groups claim to have no leaders but they do not claim to

248

be without policies. Anyone with any comprehension of anarchist theory

249

and history would know this (just one example, Bakunin argued that we

250

needed to establish "a genuine workers' program -- the policy of the

251

International [Workers Association]" ["The Policy of the

252

International", The Basic Bakunin, p. 100]).

253

254

Mitchinson asks the question, if we do not have leaders, "who decides?"

255

That in itself exposes the authoritarian nature of his politics and the

256

Bolshevik style party. He obviously cannot comprehend that, without

257

leaders deciding things for us, we manage our own affairs -- we decide

258

the policy of our organisations collectively, by the direct democracy

259

of the membership. Forgetting his early comment of that there is "no

260

greater direct action than the seizing of control over our own lives by

261

the vast majority of society," he now asks how the vast majority of

262

society can seize control over our own lives without leaders to tell us

263

what to do!

264

265

Anarchists reject the idea of leaders -- instead we argue for the

266

"leadership of ideas."

267

As we discuss this concept in [2]section J.3.6 and so will not do so

268

here. However, the key concept is that anarchists seek to spread their

269

ideas by discussing their politics as equals in popular organisations

270

and convincing the mass assemblies of these bodies by argument. Rather

271

than using these bodies to be elected to positions of power (i.e.

272

leadership as it is traditionally understood) anarchists consider it

273

essential that power remains in the hands of the base of an

274

organisation and argue that the policies of the organisation be decided

275

by the member directly in assemblies and co-ordinated by conferences of

276

mandated, recallable delegates (see [3]section A.2.9 for more

277

discussion).

278

279

This is to be expected, of course, as anarchists believe that a free

280

society can only be created by organisations which reflect the

281

principles of that society. Hence we see policies being made by those

282

affected by them and oppose attempts to turn self-managed organisations

283

into little more than vehicles to elect "leaders." A free society is a

284

self-managed one and can only be created by self-management in the

285

class struggle or revolutionary process. All that revolutionaries

286

should do is try and influence the decisions these organisations make

287

by discussing our ideas with their membership -- simply as any other

288

member could in the mass assemblies the organisation is built upon. Any

289

attempt by revolutionaries to seize power upon behalf of these

290

organisations means destroying their revolutionary potential and the

291

revolution itself by replacing the participation of all with the power

292

of a few (the party).

293

294

Thus anarchist theory and practice is very clear on the question "who

295

decides" -- it is those who are affected by the question via group

296

assemblies and conferences of mandated, recallable delegates. Rather

297

than have "no policy," policy in an anarchist organisation is decided

298

directly by the membership. Without "leaders" -- without power

299

delegated into the hands of a few -- who else could make the decisions

300

and policy? That Mitchinson cannot comprehend this implies that he

301

cannot envision a society without a few telling the many what to do.

302

303

He continues:

304

305

"If there was no leadership and no policy then there could be no

306

action of any kind. The recent demonstrations have been highly

307

organised and co-ordinated on an international scale. Good, so it

308

should be. However, without organisation and democracy no-one,

309

except a clique at the top, has any say in why, where and when. Such

310

a movement will never bring international capital trembling to its

311

knees."

312

313

Firstly, we must point out that these demonstrations which have spread

314

like wild-fire across the world have, most definitely, made

315

international capital nervous. Secondly, we must point out that no

316

Leninist vanguards were involved in organising them (a few members

317

turned up to sell papers later, once their significance had registered

318

with the party leadership). Thirdly, we must point out that no Leninist

319

vanguard has made "international capital" tremble in the knees for

320

quite a few decades -- since 1917, only Stalinist vanguards have had

321

any effect (and, of course, "international capital" soon realised they

322

could work with the Bolsheviks and other "Communist" leaders as one

323

ruling elite with another). It seems somewhat ironic that a Leninist,

324

whose movement was noticeable in its absence, mocks the first movement

325

to scare the ruling class for nearly 30 years.

326

327

Secondly, we must note that the policy decided upon by the multitude of

328

groups across the world was decided upon by the members of those

329

groups. They practised organisation and direct democracy to make their

330

policy decisions and implement them. Given that Mitchinson wonders how

331

people can make decisions without leaders, his comments about rule by

332

"a clique at the top" are somewhat ironic. As the history of the

333

Russian Revolution indicates, a highly centralised state system (which

334

mimics the highly centralised party) soon results in rule by the top

335

party officials, not by the mass of people.

336

337

Mitchinson again decides to flog his fallacy of organisation versus

338

non-organisation:

339

340

"One of the best known anarchist groups in Britain, Reclaim the

341

Streets, save the game away in their spoof Mayday publication,

342

'Maybe'. Incidentally, who wrote these articles, who decided what

343

went in and what didn't, who edited it, where did the money come

344

from? Our intention here is not to accuse them of dodgy financing -

345

simply to point out that this 'no leaders' stuff is a self-organised

346

myth."

347

348

It states who put together MayDay on page 5 of the paper. It was "an

349

organic group of 'guerrilla gardeners'" -- in other words, members of

350

Reclaim the Streets who desired to produce the paper for that event.

351

These people would have joined the group producing it via the weekly

352

RTS open meetings and would have been held accountable to that same

353

open meeting. No great mystery there -- if you have even the slightest

354

vision of how a non-hierarchical organisation works. Rather than being

355

a "myth", RTS shows that we do not need to follow leaders -- instead we

356

can manage our own organisations directly and freely participate in

357

projects organised via the main open meeting. Writing articles,

358

editing, and so on are not the work of "leaders" -- rather they are

359

simply tasks that need doing. They do not imply a leadership role -- if

360

they did then every hack journalist is a "leader."

361

362

He continues to attack what he cannot understand:

363

364

"On page 20 they announce 'Reclaim the streets is non-hierarchical,

365

spontaneous and self-organised. We have no leaders, no committee, no

366

board of directors, no spokes people. There is no centralised unit

367

for decision making, strategic planning and production of ideology.

368

There is no membership and no formalised commitment. There is no

369

master plan and no pre-defined agenda.'

370

371

"There are two problems here. Firstly who is 'we', who made the

372

above statement, and who decided it. Secondly, if it were true, it

373

would not be something of which to be proud. Whether you like it or

374

not, there is no way the capitalist system will ever be overthrown

375

by such a haphazard and slipshod method."

376

377

Taking the first issue, "who is 'we,' who made the above statement, and

378

who decided it." Why, it is the membership of RTS -- decided via their

379

weekly open meeting (as mentioned on that page). That Mitchinson cannot

380

comprehend this says a lot about his politics and vision. He cannot

381

comprehend self-management, direct democracy. He seems not to be able

382

to understand that groups can make decisions collectively, without

383

having to elect leaders to make any decisions for them.

384

385

Taking the second issue, it is clear that Mitchinson fails to

386

understand the role of RTS (and other anarchist groups). Anarchists do

387

not try to overthrow capitalism on behalf of others -- they urge them

388

to overthrow it themselves, by their own direct action. The aim of

389

groups like RTS is to encourage people to take direct action, to fight

390

the powers that be and, in the process, create their own organs of

391

self-management and resistance. Such a process of working class

392

self-activity and self-organisation in struggle is the starting process

393

of every revolution. People in struggle create their own organisations

394

-- such as soviets (workers' councils), factory committees, community

395

assemblies -- through which they start to manage their own affairs and,

396

hopefully, overthrow the state and abolish capitalism. It is not the

397

task of RTS to overthrow capitalism, it is the task of the whole

398

population.

399

400

Moreover, many anarchists do see the need for a specific anarchist

401

organisation -- three national federations exist in the UK, for

402

example. RTS does not need to organise in this fashion simply because

403

such groups already exist. It is not its role -- its role is a means to

404

encourage self-activity and direct action as well as raising

405

libertarian ideas in a popular manner. For more "serious" political

406

organisation, people can and do turn to other anarchist groups and

407

federations.

408

409

The street carnival principle of RTS is precisely the type of

410

organising anarchists excel at -- namely fun organising that catches

411

the fun and excitement of popular direct action and, most importantly,

412

gets people out on the streets -- something Marxists have failed to do

413

very well (if at all). It's a small step from organising a street

414

carnival to further, "more serious" organising. Anarchist revolution is

415

about bringing joy back into human lives, not endless (and often

416

dishonest) polemics on the ideas of long dead philosophers. Rather, it

417

is about creating a philosophy which, while inspired by past thinkers,

418

is not subservient to them and aims to base itself on current struggles

419

and needs rather than past ones. It is also about building a new

420

political culture, one that is popular, active, street-based (versus

421

ivory-tower elitist), and above all, fun. Only this way can we catch

422

the imagination of everyday people and move them from resigned apathy

423

to active resistance. The Marxists have tried their approach, and it

424

has been a resounding failure -- everyday people consider Marxism at

425

best irrelevant, and at worst, inhuman and lifeless. Fortunately,

426

anarchists are not following the Marxist model of organising, having

427

learned from history

428

429

Thus Mitchinson fails to understand the role of RTS or its position in

430

the UK anarchist movement.

431

432

He then asserts:

433

434

"There is no theory, no coherent analysis of society, no alternative

435

programme. To brag of a lack of direction, a lack of purpose and a

436

lack of coherence, in the face of such a highly organised and brutal

437

enemy as international capital, is surely the height of

438

irresponsibility."

439

440

Firstly, anyone reading Maybe or other RTS publications will quickly

441

see there is theory, coherent analysis and an alternative vision. As

442

Mitchinson has obviously read Maybe we can only assume his claim is a

443

conscious lie. Secondly, RTS in the quoted passage clearly do not "brag

444

of a lack of direction, a lack of purpose and a lack of coherence."

445

They do state there is no "centralised unit for decision-making" --

446

which is true, they have a decentralised unit for decision-making

447

(direct democracy in open meetings). There is "no master-plan," etc. as

448

any plans are decided upon by these open meetings. There is no

449

pre-defined agenda because, as a democratic organisation, it is up to

450

the open meeting to define their own agenda.

451

452

It is only Mitchinson's assumption that only centralised parties, with

453

leaders making the decisions, can have "direction," "purpose" and

454

"coherence." As can be seen by their actions that RTS does have

455

direction, purpose and coherence. Needless to say, while other

456

anarchists may be critical about RTS and its actions, we do not deny

457

that it has been an effective organisation, involving a great many

458

people in its actions who would probably not be involved in political

459

activities. Rather than being "irresponsible," RTS shows the validity

460

of libertarian organisation and its effectiveness. No Marxist Party has

461

remotely approached RTS's successes in terms of involving people in

462

political actions. This is hardly a surprise.

463

464

6. How does Mitchinson define anarchism wrongly?

465

466

Mitchinson states:

467

468

"In reality the leaders of these movements are not devoid of

469

ideology, they are anarchists. Anarchism is not simply a term of

470

abuse, it comes from the Greek word 'anarchos' meaning 'without

471

government'. To anarchists the state - the institutions of

472

government, the army, police, courts etc. - is the root cause of all

473

that is wrong in the world. It must be destroyed and replaced not

474

with any new form of government, but the immediate introduction of a

475

stateless society."

476

477

Firstly, "anarchos" actually means "without authority," or "contrary to

478

authority" (as Kropotkin put it). It does not mean "without government"

479

as such (although it commonly is used that way). This means that

480

anarchism does not consider the state as "the root of all that is wrong

481

with the world" -- we consider it, like capitalism (wage slavery),

482

patriarchy, hierarchy in general, etc., as a symptom of a deeper

483

problem, namely authority (or, more precisely, authoritarian social

484

relations, hierarchical power -- of which class power is a subset).

485

Therefore anarchist theory is concerned with more than just the state

486

-- it is against capitalism just as much as it is against the state,

487

for example.

488

489

Thus, to state the obvious, as anyone familiar with anarchist theory

490

could tell you, anarchists do not think that "the state" is the root of

491

all that is wrong in the world. Marxists have asserted this for years

492

-- unfortunately for them, repetition does not make something true!

493

Rather, anarchists see the state as one of the causes of evil in the

494

world and the main protector of all the rest. We also stress that in

495

order to combat all the evils, we need to destroy the state so that we

496

are in a position to abolish the other evils by being in control of our

497

own lives. For example, in order to abolish capitalism -- i.e. for

498

workers' to seize the means of life -- the state, which protects

499

property rights, must be destroyed. Without doing so, the police and

500

army will come and take back that which the workers' have taken.

501

However, we do not claim that the state causes all of our problems --

502

we do claim that getting rid of the state is an essential act, on which

503

many others are dependent.

504

505

As Brian Morris argues:

506

507

"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of

508

politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil, ignoring

509

other aspects of social and economic life. This is a

510

misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way

511

anarchism has been defined, and partly because Marxist historians

512

have tried to exclude anarchism from the broader socialist movement.

513

But when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as

514

well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly

515

evident that it has never had this limited vision. It has always

516

challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been

517

equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the

518

state." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," Anarchy: A Journal of Desire

519

Armed, no. 45, p, p. 40]

520

521

As can be seen, Mitchinson repeats into the usual Marxist straw man.

522

523

7. Does anarchism reject fighting for reforms?

524

525

After asserting the usual Marxist falsehoods about anarchism, he moves

526

on:

527

528

"This opposition to the state and authority leads to a rejection of

529

participation in any form of parliamentary activity, belonging to a

530

political party or fighting for any reforms, that is political

531

change through the state."

532

533

Again Mitchinson smuggles in a falsehood into his "analysis."

534

Anarchists do not reject "fighting for any reforms" -- far from it. We

535

do reject parliamentary activity, that is true, but we think that

536

reforms can and must be won. We see such reforms coming via the direct

537

action of those who desire them -- for example, by workers striking for

538

better working conditions, more wages and so. Anyone with even a

539

passing awareness of anarchist thought would know this. Indeed, that is

540

what direct action means -- it was coined by French

541

anarcho-syndicalists to describe the struggle for reforms within

542

capitalism!

543

544

As for rejecting parliamentary activity, yes, anarchists do reject this

545

form of "action." However, we do so for reasons Mitchinson fails to

546

mention. [4]Section J.2 of the FAQ discusses the reasons why anarchists

547

support direct action and oppose electioneering as a means of both

548

reform and for revolution.

549

550

Similarly, anarchists reject political parties but we do not reject

551

political organisations -- i.e. specific anarchist groups. The

552

difference is that political parties are generally organised in a

553

hierarchical fashion and anarchist federations are not -- we try and

554

create the new world when we organise rather than reproducing the

555

traits of the current, bourgeois, one.

556

557

Needless to say, Mitchinson seeks to recruit the people he is

558

slandering and so holds out an olive-branch by stating that "[o]f

559

course, Marxism is opposed to the brutal domination of the capitalist

560

state too. Marx saw a future society without a state but instead 'an

561

association in which the free development of each is the condition for

562

the free development of all.' That is a self-governing people. The

563

question however is how can this be achieved?"

564

565

Yes, as Bakunin argued, Marxists do not reject our programme out of

566

hand. They claim to also seek a free society and so Mitchinson is

567

correct -- the question is how can this be achieved. Anarchists argue

568

that a self-governing people can only be achieved by self-governing

569

means -- "Bakunin . . . advocated socialist (i.e., libertarian) means

570

in order to achieve a socialist (i.e., libertarian) society." [Arthur

571

Lehning, "Introduction", Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 27]

572

Thus means and ends must be consistent -- revolutionary movements must

573

be organised in a way that reflects the society we want to create. Thus

574

a self-governing society can only be created by self-governing

575

organisations and a self-governing movement. If the revolutionary

576

movement reflect bourgeois society -- for example, is hierarchical --

577

then it cannot create a free society. That is the rationale for the way

578

anarchist groups organise, including RTS. Marxists, as we will see,

579

disagree and consider how a revolutionary movement organises itself as

580

irrelevant.

581

582

Also, we must note that earlier Mitchinson denied that a self-governing

583

organisation could exist when he was discussing RTS. He asserted that

584

"[i]f there was no leadership and no policy then there could be no

585

action of any kind." Now he claims that it is possible, but only after

586

the revolution. We will note the obvious contradiction -- how do people

587

become capable of self-government post-revolution if they do not

588

practice it pre-revolution and, obviously, during the revolution?

589

590

8. Does anarchism see the state as the root of all problems?

591

592

Mitchinson moves on to assert that:

593

594

"Since anarchism sees in the state the root of all problems, it

595

therefore believes these problems will be resolved by the

596

destruction of the state."

597

598

As noted above, anarchists do not see in the state the root of all

599

problems. We do urge the destruction of the state but that is because

600

the state is the protector of existing society and in order to

601

transform that society we need get rid of it. Kropotkin, for example,

602

was well aware of "the evil done by Capitalism and the State that

603

supports it." [Evolution and Environment, p. 83] Rather than seeing the

604

State as the root of all evil, anarchists are well aware that evil is

605

caused by many things -- particularly capitalism -- and that the state,

606

as well as causing its own evils, supports and protects others. Thus

607

anarchists are aware that the state is a tool for minority rule and

608

only one source of evil.

609

610

Mitchinson, after misrepresenting anarchist thought, states:

611

612

"Marxism, meanwhile, sees the division of society into classes, a

613

minority who own the means of producing wealth, and the majority of

614

us whose labour is the source of that wealth, as the crux of the

615

matter. It is this class division of society which gives rise to the

616

state - because the minority need a special force to maintain their

617

rule over the majority - which has evolved over thousands of years

618

into the complicated structures we see today."

619

620

Anarchists would agree, as far as this goes. Bakunin argued that the

621

State "is authority, domination, and forced, organised by the

622

property-owning and so-called enlightened classes against the masses."

623

He saw the social revolution as destroying capitalism and the state at

624

the same time, that is "to overturn the State's domination, and that of

625

the privileged classes whom it solely represents." [The Basic Bakunin,

626

p. 140] The idea that the state is a means to ensure class rule is one

627

anarchists, as can be seen, would agree with.

628

629

However, anarchists do not reduce their understanding of the state to

630

this simplistic Marxist analysis. While being well aware that the state

631

is the means of ensuring the domination of an economic elite,

632

anarchists recognise that the state machine also has interests of its

633

own. The state, for anarchists, is the delegation of power into the

634

hands of a few. This creates, by its very nature, a privileged position

635

for those at the top of the hierarchy:

636

637

"A government, that is a group of people entrusted with making the

638

laws and empowered to use the collective force to oblige each

639

individual to obey them, is already a privileged class and cut off

640

from the people. As any constituted body would do, it will

641

instinctively seek to extend its powers, to be beyond public

642

control, to impose its own policies and to give priority to its

643

special interests. Having been put in a privileged position, the

644

government is already at odds with the people whose strength it

645

disposes of." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 34]

646

647

Thus, while it is true that the state (particularly under capitalism)

648

acts as the agent of the capitalist class, it does not mean that it

649

does not have interests of its own. The State has developed as a means

650

of imposing minority rule -- that much anarchists and Marxists can

651

agree upon. To do so it has developed certain features, notably

652

delegation of power into the hands of a few. This feature of the state

653

is a product of its function. However, function and feature are

654

inseparable -- retain the feature and the function will be

655

re-established. In other words, maintain the state and minority rule

656

will be re-established.

657

658

The simplistic class analysis of the state has always caused Marxists

659

problems, particularly Trotskyists who used it to deny the obvious

660

class nature of Stalinist Russia. Rather than see the USSR as a class

661

society in which the State bureaucracy exploited and oppressed the

662

working class for its own benefits, Trotskyists argued it was an

663

autocratic, privileged bureaucracy in a classless society. As anarchist

664

Camillo Berneri argued:

665

666

"In history there is no absurdity. An autocratic bureaucracy is a

667

class, therefore it is not absurd that it should exist in a society

668

where classes remain -- the bureaucratic class and the proletarian

669

class. If the USSR was a 'classless' society, it would also be a

670

society without a bureaucratic autocracy, which is the natural fruit

671

of the permanent existence of the State." ["The State and Classes",

672

Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review, no, 4, p. 49]

673

674

The weakness (or incompleteness) of the Marxist understanding of the

675

state can best be seen by Trotsky's and his followers lack of

676

understanding of Stalinism. As the state owned all the land and means

677

of production, there could be no classes and so the Soviet Union must

678

be a classless society. However, the obvious privileges of the

679

bureaucracy could not be denied (as Trotsky was once a leading

680

bureaucrat, he saw and experienced them at first hand). But as the

681

state bureaucracy could not be a class and have class interests (by

682

definition), Trotsky could not see the wood for the trees. The actual

683

practice of Leninism in power is enough to expose its own theoretical

684

weaknesses.

685

686

9. Why is Mitchinson wrong about the "Abolishion [i.e. Abolition] of the state"?

687

688

Mitchinson moves on to argue that the "modern capitalist state can wear

689

many guises, monarchy, republic, dictatorship, but in the end its

690

purpose remains the same, to maintain the minority rule of the

691

capitalist class. Marxism's goal therefore is not simply to abolish the

692

state, but to put an end to class society." Needless to say, that is

693

also anarchism's goal. As Bakunin argued, "political transformation . .

694

. [and] economic transformation . . . must be accomplished together and

695

simultaneously." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 106] So, as can be seen,

696

anarchism's goal is not simply abolishing the state, but to put an end

697

to class society. That anarchists have always argued the state and

698

capitalism must be destroyed at the same time is easily discovered from

699

reading their works.

700

701

Continuing this theme he argues that the state "was born with the split

702

of society into classes to defend private property. So long as there

703

are classes there will be a state. So, how can class society be ended?

704

Not by its denial, but only by the victory of one of the contending

705

classes. Triumph for capitalism spells ruin for millions."

706

707

Of course, we could point out here that many anthropologists disagree

708

with the claim that the state is a product of class society. As Michael

709

Taylor summarises, the "evidence does not give this proposition a great

710

deal of support. Much of the evidence which has been offered in support

711

of it shows only that the primary states, not long after their

712

emergence, were economically stratified. But this is of course

713

consistent also with the simultaneous rise . . . of political and

714

economic stratification, or with the prior development of the state --

715

i.e. of political stratification -- and the creation of economic

716

stratification by the ruling class." [Community, Anarchy and Liberty,

717

p. 132]

718

719

Also, of course, as should be obvious from what we have said

720

previously, anarchists do not think class society can be ended by

721

"denial." As is clear from even a quick reading of any anarchist

722

thinker, anarchists seek to end class society as well as the state.

723

However, we reject as simplistic the Marxist notion that the state

724

exists purely to defend classes. The state has certain properties

725

because it is a state and one of these is that it creates a

726

bureaucratic class around it due to its centralised, hierarchical

727

nature. Within capitalism, the state bureaucracy is part of the ruling

728

class and (generally) under the control of the capitalist class.

729

However, to generalise from this specific case is wrong as the state

730

bureaucracy is a class in itself -- and so trying to abolish classes

731

without abolishing the state is doomed to failure.

732

733

10. Why is Mitchinson's comment that we face either "socialism or barbarism"

734

actually undermine his case?

735

736

Mitchinson continues:

737

738

"As Marx once explained the choice before us is not socialism or the

739

status quo, but socialism or barbarism."

740

741

We should point out that it Rosa Luxemburg who is usually associated

742

with this quote. She made her famous comment during the First World

743

War. The start of this war saw the Marxist German Social Democratic

744

Party (and a host of others) vote for war credits in Parliament. This

745

party was a mass workers' party which aimed to used every means,

746

including elections, to gain reforms for the working class. The net end

747

result of this strategy was the voting for war credits and the support

748

of their state and ruling class in the war -- that is, the betrayal of

749

the fundamental principles of socialism.

750

751

This event did not happen out of the blue. It was the end result of

752

years of working within the bourgeois political system, of using

753

elections ("political activity") as a means of struggle. The Social

754

Democratic Parties had already been plagued with reformist elements for

755

years. These elements, again, did not come from nowhere but were rather

756

the response to what the party was actually doing. They desired to

757

reform the party to bring its rhetoric in-line with its practice. As

758

one of the most distinguished historians of this period put it, the

759

"distinction between the contenders remained largely a subjective one,

760

a difference of ideas in the evaluation of reality rather than a

761

difference in the realm of action." [C. Schorske, German Social

762

Democracy, p. 38] The debacle of 1914 was a logical result of the means

763

chosen, the evidence was already there for all to see (except,

764

apparently, Lenin who praised the "fundamentals of parliamentary

765

tactics" of the German and International Social Democracy and how they

766

were "at the same time implacable on questions of principle and always

767

directed to the accomplishment of the final aim" in his obituary of

768

August Bebel in 1913! [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and

769

Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 248])

770

771

Needless to say, this result had been predicted by Bakunin over 40

772

years previously. And Mitchinson wants us to repeat this strategy? As

773

Marx said, history repeats itself -- first it is tragedy, second time

774

it is farce.

775

776

11. Why is Mitchinson wrong to assert anarchists do not believe in defending a

777

revolution?

778

779

Mitchinson argues that the "victory of the working class can only mean

780

the destruction of the capitalist state. Will the capitalists take

781

defeat like sporting ladies and gentlemen, retiring quietly to the

782

pavilion? No, all history suggests that they would not. The workers

783

would need to create a new state, for the first time to defend the rule

784

of the majority over the minority."

785

786

Yes, indeed, all history does show that a ruling class will not retire

787

quietly and a revolution will need to defend itself. If anarchists did

788

believe that they would retire peacefully then Marxists would be

789

correct to attack us. However, Marxist assertions are false. Indeed,

790

they must think anarchists are morons if they genuinely do think we do

791

not believe in defending a revolution. A few quotes should suffice to

792

expose these Marxist claims as lies:

793

794

"Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the

795

Barricades. . . [T]he federation of insurgent associations, communes

796

and provinces . . . [would] organise a revolutionary force capable

797

of defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of the expansion and

798

organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence among

799

the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of the

800

revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-1]

801

802

"[L]et us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] . .

803

. Paris will naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can,

804

in revolutionary style, after the workers have joined into

805

associations and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of

806

labour, every kind of capital and building; armed and organised by

807

streets and quartiers, they will form the revolutionary federation

808

of all the quartiers, the federative commune. . . All the French and

809

foreign revolutionary communes will then send representatives to

810

organise the necessary common services . . . and to organise common

811

defence against the enemies of the Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 178-9]

812

813

Bakunin was well aware that revolution implied "civil war" -- i.e.

814

attempts by the ruling class to maintain its power (see, for example,

815

his "Letters to a Frenchman" in Bakunin on Anarchism). As can be seen,

816

Bakunin was well aware of the needs to defend a revolution after

817

destroying the state and abolishing capitalism. Similarly we discover

818

Malatesta arguing that we should "[a]rm all the population," and the

819

"creation of a voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as

820

militia in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed

821

attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to

822

resist outside intervention by countries as yet not in a state of

823

revolution." [Life and Ideas, p. 170 and p. 166] In Malatesta's words:

824

825

"But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still

826

unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to

827

reduce free people to a state of slavery once again. Would this

828

people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men are

829

needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical

830

knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to

831

go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the

832

former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the experience of

833

history teaches us that a people who really want to defend their own

834

country are invincible: and in Italy everyone knows that before the

835

corps of volunteers (anarchist formations) thrones topple, and

836

regular armies composed of conscripts or mercenaries disappear. . .

837

[Some people] seem almost to believe that after having brought down

838

government and private property we would allow both to be quietly

839

built up again, because of a respect for the freedom of those who

840

might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. A truly

841

curious way of interpreting our ideas!" [Anarchy, pp. 40-1]

842

843

Not only do we have this theoretical position, we can also point to

844

concrete historical examples -- the Makhnovist movement in the Russian

845

Revolution and the CNT militias during the Spanish Revolution, among

846

others -- that prove that anarchists do recognise the need and

847

importance of defending a successful revolution.

848

849

Therefore, statements asserting that anarchists are against defending a

850

revolution are either spreading a conscious lie or a product of deep

851

ignorance.

852

853

Thus the question is not one of defending or not defending a

854

revolution. The question is how do we defend it (and, another key

855

question, what kind of revolution do we aim for). Marxists urge us to

856

"create a new state, for the first time to defend the rule of the

857

majority over the minority." Anarchists reply that every state is based

858

on the delegation of power into the hands of a minority and so cannot

859

be used to defend the rule of the majority over the minority. Rather,

860

it would be the rule of those who claim to represent the majority. The

861

confusion between people power and party power is at the root of why

862

Leninism is not revolutionary.

863

864

Mitchinson then quotes Lenin and Trotsky to defend his assertion:

865

866

"The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all

867

disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the

868

state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must

869

temporarily make use of the instruments resources and methods of

870

state power against the exploiters." [Lenin]

871

872

"Marxists are wholly in agreement with the anarchists in regard to

873

the final goal: the liquidation of the state. Marxists are statist

874

only to the extent that one cannot achieve the liquidation of the

875

state simply by ignoring it." [Trotsky]

876

877

Of course, quoting Lenin or Trotsky when they make a false assertion

878

does not turn lies into truth. As proven above, anarchists are well

879

aware of the necessity of overthrowing the state by revolution and

880

defending that revolution against attempts to defeat it. To state

881

otherwise is to misrepresent anarchist theory on this subject.

882

Moreover, despite Trotsky's claims, anarchists are aware that you do

883

not destroy something by ignoring it. The real question is thus not

884

whether to defend a revolution or whether to shatter the state machine.

885

The questions are, how do you shatter the state, what do you replace

886

existing society with and how do you defend a revolution. To state

887

otherwise is to build a strawman -- unfortunately much of Lenin's

888

"masterpiece" The State and Revolution is based on destroying this

889

self-created strawman.

890

891

12. Would the "workers' state" really be different, as Mitchinson claims?

892

893

Mitchinson argues that from "the very beginning this would be like no

894

previous state machine. From day one it would be in effect a

895

semi-state." The question is, for anarchists, whether this "semi-state"

896

is marked by the delegation of power into the hands of a government. If

897

so, then the "semi-state" is no such thing -- it is a state like any

898

other and so an instrument of minority rule. Yes, this minority may

899

state it represents the majority but in practice it can only represent

900

itself and claim that is what the majority desires.

901

902

Hence, for anarchists, "the essence of the state . . . [is] centralised

903

power or to put it another way the coercive authority of which the

904

state enjoys the monopoly, in that organisation of violence know as

905

'government'; in the hierarchical despotism, juridical, police and

906

military despotism that imposes laws on everyone." [Luigi Fabbri, Op.

907

Cit., pp. 24-5] The so-called "semi-state" is nothing of the kind -- it

908

is a centralised power in which a few govern the many. Therefore, the

909

"workers' state" would be "workers" in name only.

910

911

Mitchinson continues:

912

913

"The task of all previous revolutions was to seize state power. From

914

the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871 Marx and Engels

915

concluded that it would not be possible for the workers to simply

916

use the old state apparatus, they would instead have to replace it

917

with an entirely new one, to serve the interests of the majority and

918

lay the basis for a socialist society."

919

920

Needless to say, he forgets the key question -- who is to seize power.

921

Is it the majority, directly, or a minority (the leaders of a party)

922

who claim to represent the majority. Leninists are clear, it is to be

923

the party, not the working class as a whole. They confuse party power

924

with class power. In the words of Lenin:

925

926

"The very presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of the Party

927

or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or

928

dictatorship (Party) of the masses?' -- is evidence of the most

929

incredible and hopeless confusion of mind . . . [because] classes

930

are usually . . . led by political parties. . . "

931

932

And:

933

934

"To go so far in this matter as to draw a contrast in general

935

between the dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of the

936

leaders, is ridiculously absurd and stupid." [Left-wing Communism:

937

An Infantile Disorder, pp. 25-6 and p. 27]

938

939

However, what is truly stupid is confusing the rule by a minority with

940

that of the majority managing their own affairs. The two things are

941

different, they generate different social relationships and to confuse

942

the two is to lay the ground work for the rule by a bureaucratic elite,

943

a dictatorship of state officials over the working class.

944

945

Now we come to the usual Leninist claims about Bolshevik theory:

946

947

"To ensure that the workers maintain control over this state, Lenin

948

argued for the election of all officials who should be held

949

accountable and subject to recall, and paid no more than the wage of

950

a skilled worker. All bureaucratic tasks should be rotated. There

951

should be no special armed force standing apart from the people, and

952

we would add, all political parties except fascists should be

953

allowed to organise."

954

955

This is what Lenin, essentially, said he desired in The State and

956

Revolution (Mitchinson misses out one key aspect, to which we will

957

return later). Anarchists reply in three ways.

958

959

Firstly, we note that "much that passes for 'Marxism' in State and

960

Revolution is pure anarchism -- for example, the substitution of

961

revolutionary militias for professional armed bodies and the

962

substitution of organs of self-management for parliamentary bodies.

963

What is authentically Marxist in Lenin's pamphlet is the demand for

964

'strict centralism,' the acceptance of a 'new' bureaucracy, and the

965

identification of soviets with a state." [Murray Bookchin,

966

Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 213] As an example, let us look at the

967

recall of "officials" (inspired by the Paris Commune). We find this in

968

Bakunin's and Proudhon's work before it was applied by the Communards

969

and praised by Marx. Bakunin in 1868 argued for a "Revolutionary

970

Communal Council" composed of "delegates . . . vested with plenary but

971

accountable and removable mandates." [Michael Bakunin: Selected

972

Writings, pp. 170-1] Proudhon's election manifesto of 1848 argued for

973

"universal suffrage and as a consequence of universal suffrage, we want

974

implementation of the binding mandate. Politicians balk at it! Which

975

means that in their eyes, the people, in electing representatives, do

976

not appoint mandatories but rather abjure their sovereignty! That is

977

assuredly not socialism: it is not even democracy." [No Gods, No

978

Masters, vol. 1, p. 63] As can be seen, Lenin's recommendations were

979

first proposed by anarchists.

980

981

Thus the positive aspects of Lenin's work are libertarian in nature,

982

not Marxist as such. Indeed given how much time is spent on the Paris

983

Commune (an essentially libertarian revolt obviously inspired by

984

Proudhon's ideas) his work is more libertarian than Marxist, as

985

Bookchin makes clear. It is the non-libertarian aspects which helped to

986

undermine the anarchist elements of the work.

987

988

Secondly, Lenin does not mention, never mind discuss, the role of the

989

Bolshevik Party would have in the new "semi-state." Indeed, the party

990

is mentioned only in passing. That in itself indicates the weakness of

991

using The State and Revolution as a guide book to Leninist theory or

992

practice. Given the importance of the role of the party in Lenin's

993

previous and latter works, it suggests that to quote The State and

994

Revolution as proof of Leninism's democratic heart leaves much to be

995

desired. And even The State and Revolution, in its one serious

996

reference to the Party, is ambiguous in the extreme:

997

998

"By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of

999

the proletariat which is capable of assuming power and of leading

1000

the whole people to Socialism, of directing and organising the new

1001

order, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the

1002

toiling and exploited in the task of building up their social life

1003

without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie." [The Essential

1004

Lenin, p. 288]

1005

1006

Is it the vanguard or the proletariat which is "capable of assuming

1007

power"? The answer is important as a social revolution requires the

1008

fullest participation of the formerly oppressed masses in the

1009

management of their own affairs. In the context of the rest of The

1010

State and Revolution it could be argued it is the proletariat. However,

1011

this cannot be squared with Lenin's (or Trotsky's) post-October

1012

arguments and practices or the resolution of the Second World Congress

1013

of the Communist International which stated that "[e]very class

1014

struggle is a political struggle. The goal of this struggle . . . is

1015

the conquest of political power. Political power cannot be seized,

1016

organised and operated except through a political party." [cited by

1017

Duncan Hallas, The Comintern, p. 35] It is obvious that if the party

1018

rules, the working class does not. A socialist society cannot be built

1019

without the participation, self-activity and self-management of the

1020

working class. Thus the question of who makes decisions and how they do

1021

so is essential -- if it is not the masses then the slide into

1022

bureaucracy is inevitable.

1023

1024

Thus to quote The State and Revolution proves nothing for anarchists --

1025

it does not discuss the key question of the party and so fails to

1026

present a clear picture of Leninist politics and their immediate aims.

1027

As soon becomes clear if you look at Leninism in power -- i.e. what it

1028

actually did when it had the chance, to which we now turn.

1029

1030

Thirdly, we point to what he actually did in power. In this we follow

1031

Marx, who argued that we should judge people by what they do rather

1032

than what they say. We will concentrate on the pre-Civil War (October

1033

1917 to May 1918) period to indicate that this breaking of promises

1034

started before the horrors of Civil War can be claimed to have forced

1035

these decisions onto the Bolsheviks.

1036

1037

Before the out-break of Civil War, the Bolsheviks had replaced election

1038

of "all officials" by appointment from above in many areas of life --

1039

for example, they abolished the election of officers in the Red Army

1040

and replaced workers' self-management in production with one-man

1041

management, both forms of democracy being substituted by appointed from

1042

above. In addition, by the end of April, 1918, Lenin himself was

1043

arguing "[o]bedience, and unquestioning obedience at that, during work

1044

to the one-man decisions of Soviet directors, of the dictators elected

1045

or appointed by Soviet institutions, vested with dictatorial powers."

1046

[Six Theses on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, p. 44 --

1047

our emphasis] Moreover, the Soviet Constitution stated that "[e]very

1048

commissar [of the Council of People's Commissars -- i.e. the Soviet

1049

government] has a collegium (committee) of which he is the president,

1050

and the members of which are appointed by the Council of People's

1051

Commissars." Appointment was the rule at the very heights of the state.

1052

The "election of all officers" ("without exception" [Lenin, The State

1053

and Revolution, p. 302]) had ended by month six of the revolution even

1054

in Lenin's own writings -- and before the start of the Civil War.

1055

1056

Lenin also argued in mid-April 1918 that the "socialist character of

1057

Soviet, i.e. proletarian, democracy" lies, in part, in "the people

1058

themselves determin[ing] the order and time of elections." [The

1059

Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, pp. 36-7] Given that "the

1060

government [had] continually postponed the new general elections to the

1061

Petrograd Soviet, the term of which had ended in March 1918" because it

1062

"feared that the opposition parties would show gains" Lenin's comments

1063

seem hypocritical in the extreme. [Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, p.

1064

22]

1065

1066

Moreover, the Bolsheviks did not stay true to Lenin's claim in The

1067

State and Revolution that "since the majority of the people itself

1068

suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force' is no longer necessary" as

1069

so "in place of a special repressive force, the whole population itself

1070

came on the scene." In this way the "state machine" would be "the armed

1071

masses of workers who become transformed into a universal people's

1072

militia." [Op. Cit., p. 301, p. 320 and p. 347] Instead they created a

1073

political police force (the Cheka) and a standing army (in which

1074

elections were a set aside by decree). These were special,

1075

professional, armed forces standing apart from the people and

1076

unaccountable to them. Indeed, they were used to repress strikes and

1077

working class unrest. So much for Mitchinson's claim that "there should

1078

be no special armed force standing apart from the people" -- it did not

1079

last three months (the Cheka was founded two months into the

1080

revolution, the Red Army was created in early 1918 and elections set

1081

aside by March of that year).

1082

1083

Lastly, the Bolsheviks banned newspapers from the start -- including

1084

other socialist papers. In addition, they did not allow other political

1085

tendencies to organise freely. The repression started before the Civil

1086

War with the attack, by the Cheka, in April 1918 on the anarchist

1087

movements in Petrograd and Moscow. While repression obviously existed

1088

during the Civil War, it is significant that it, in fact, started

1089

before it began. During the Civil War, the Bolsheviks repressed all

1090

political parties, including the Mensheviks even though they

1091

"consistently pursued a policy of peaceable opposition to the Bolshevik

1092

regime, a policy conducted by strictly legitimate means" and

1093

"[i]ndividual Mensheviks who joined organisations aiming at the

1094

overthrow of the Soviet Government were expelled from the Menshevik

1095

Party." [George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police, pp. 318-9

1096

and p. 332] In fact, repression increased after the end of the Civil

1097

War -- a strange fact if it was that war which necessitated repression

1098

in the first place.

1099

1100

Moreover, Mitchinson fails to mention Lenin's argument that, like the

1101

Paris Commune, the workers' state would be based on a fusion of

1102

executive and administrative functions in the hands of the workers'

1103

delegates. This is hardly surprising, as Lenin created an executive

1104

body (the Council of People's Commissars) immediately after the October

1105

Revolution. This division of executive and administrative powers was

1106

written into the Soviet Constitution. So much for The State and

1107

Revolution -- its promises did not last a night.

1108

1109

Thus, his claims that the "semi-state" would not be like any other

1110

state are contradicted by the actual experience of Bolshevism in power.

1111

For anarchists, this comes as no surprise as they are well aware that

1112

the state machine does not (indeed, cannot) represent the interests of

1113

the working classes due to its centralised, hierarchical and elitist

1114

nature -- all it can do is represent the interests of the party in

1115

power, its own bureaucratic needs and privileges and slowly, but

1116

surely, remove itself from popular control. Hence the movement away

1117

from popular control -- it is the nature of centralised power to remove

1118

itself from control from below, control by the masses, particularly

1119

when all other focal points of working class self-management have been

1120

abolished as being no longer required as we have a "semi-state."

1121

1122

Mitchinson seems to want us to look purely at Bolshevik theory and not

1123

its practice. It is exactly what supporters of capitalism desire us to

1124

do -- in theory, capitalism is based on free agreement and free

1125

exchange between autonomous individuals but in practice it is a system

1126

of inequality which violates the autonomy of individuals and makes a

1127

mockery of free agreement.

1128

1129

In a way, The State and Revolution laid out the foundations and

1130

sketched out the essential features of an alternative to Bolshevik

1131

power -- as noted, that system would be essentially libertarian. Only

1132

the pro-Leninist tradition has used Lenin's work, almost to quiet their

1133

conscience, because Lenin, once in power, ignored it totally. Such is

1134

the nature of the state -- as Kropotkin and all other anarchists have

1135

argued, there can be no such thing as a "revolutionary government."

1136

Conflict will inevitably arise between the party which aims to control

1137

the revolution and the actions of the masses themselves. To resolve the

1138

conflict the state must eliminate the organs of workers self-activity

1139

which the revolution creates otherwise the party cannot impose its

1140

decisions -- and this is what the Bolshevik state did, aided of course

1141

by the horrors of the civil war.

1142

1143

To state the obvious, to quote theory and not relate it to the practice

1144

of those who claim to follow that theory is a joke. It is little more

1145

than sophistry. If you look at the actions of the Bolsheviks before and

1146

after the Russian Revolution you cannot help draw the conclusion that

1147

Lenin's State and Revolution has nothing to do with Bolshevik policy

1148

and presents a false image of what Trotskyists desire.

1149

1150

13. Is the Marxist "worker's state" really the rule of one class over another?

1151

1152

Mitchinson argues that the "task of this state would be to develop the

1153

economy to eradicate want. Less need, means less need to govern

1154

society, less need for a state. Class society and the state will begin

1155

to wither away as the government of people, the rule of one class over

1156

another, is replaced by the administration of things, the planned use

1157

of resources to meet society's needs."

1158

1159

As Malatesta makes clear, this is pure sophistry:

1160

1161

"Whoever has power over things has power over men; whoever governs

1162

production also governs the producers; who determines consumption is

1163

master over the consumer.

1164

1165

"This is the question; either things are administered on the basis

1166

of free agreement of the interested parties, and this is anarchy; or

1167

they are administered according to laws made by administrators and

1168

this is government, it is the State, and inevitably it turns out to

1169

be tyrannical.

1170

1171

"It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will of

1172

this or that man, but of the inevitability of the situation, and of

1173

the tendencies which man generally develops in given circumstances."

1174

[Life and Ideas, p. 145]

1175

1176

Moreover, it is debatable whether Trotskyists really desire the rule of

1177

one class over another in the sense of working class over capitalist

1178

class. To quote Trotsky:

1179

1180

"the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. In itself

1181

the necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural

1182

level of the masses and their heterogeneity. In the revolutionary

1183

vanguard, organised in a party, is crystallised the aspirations of

1184

the masses to obtain their freedom. Without the confidence of the

1185

class in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by the class,

1186

there can be no talk of the conquest of power.

1187

1188

"In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the

1189

work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of the

1190

vanguard."

1191

[Stalinism and Bolshevism]

1192

1193

Thus, rather than the working class as a whole seizing power, it is the

1194

"vanguard" which takes power -- "a revolutionary party, even after

1195

seizing power . . . is still by no means the sovereign ruler of

1196

society." [Ibid.] That is, of course, true -- they are still organs of

1197

working class self-management (such as factory committees, workers

1198

councils, trade unions, soldier committees) through which working

1199

people can still exercise their sovereignty. Little wonder Trotsky

1200

abolished independent unions, decreed the end of soldier committees and

1201

urged one-man management and the militarisation of labour when in

1202

power. Such working class organs do conflict with the sovereign rule of

1203

the party and so have to be abolished.

1204

1205

After being in power four years, Trotsky was arguing that the "Party is

1206

obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary

1207

vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not

1208

base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers'

1209

democracy." [quoted by Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p.

1210

78]

1211

1212

This position follows naturally from Trotsky's comments that the party

1213

"crystallises" the "aspirations" of the masses. If the masses reject

1214

the party then, obviously, their "cultural level" has fallen and so the

1215

party has the right, nay the duty, to impose its dictatorship over

1216

them. Similarly, the destruction of organs of working class

1217

self-management can be justified because the vanguard has taken power

1218

-- which is exactly what Trotsky argued.

1219

1220

With regards to the Red Army and its elected officers, he stated in

1221

March 1918 that "the principle of election is politically purposeless

1222

and technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice, abolished by

1223

decree" because the Bolshevik Party held power or, as he put it,

1224

"political power is in the hands of the same working class from whose

1225

ranks the Army is recruited." Of course, power was actually held by the

1226

Bolshevik party, not the working class, but never fear:

1227

1228

"Once we have established the Soviet regime, that is a system under

1229

which the government is headed by persons who have been directly

1230

elected by the Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers'

1231

Deputies, there can be no antagonism between the government and the

1232

mass of the workers, just as there is no antagonism between the

1233

administration of the union and the general assembly of its members,

1234

and, therefore, there cannot be any grounds for fearing the

1235

appointment of members of the commanding staff by the organs of the

1236

Soviet Power." [Work, Discipline, Order]

1237

1238

He made the same comments with regard the factory committees:

1239

1240

"It would be a most crying error to confuse the question as to the

1241

supremacy of the proletariat with the question of boards of workers

1242

at the head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is

1243

expressed in the abolition of private property in the means of

1244

production, in the supremacy of the collective will of the workers

1245

[a euphemism for the Party -- M.B.] and not at all in the form in

1246

which individual economic organisations are administered." [quoted

1247

by Maurice Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 66]

1248

1249

This point is reiterated in his essay, "Bolshevism and Stalinism"

1250

(written in 1937) when he argued that:

1251

1252

"Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the party

1253

dictatorship should understand that only thanks to the party

1254

dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift themselves out of the mud

1255

of reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat."

1256

[Trotsky, Op. Cit., p. 18]

1257

1258

And, obviously, without party dictatorship the soviets would return to

1259

the "mud." In other words, the soviets are only important to attain

1260

party rule and if the two come into conflict then Trotskyism provides

1261

the rule of the party with an ideological justification to eliminate

1262

soviet democracy. Lenin's and Trotsky's politics allowed them to argue

1263

that if you let the proletariat have a say then the dictatorship of the

1264

proletariat could be in danger.

1265

1266

Thus, for Trotsky, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is independent

1267

of allowing the proletariat to manage their own affairs directly.

1268

However, without the means of manage their own affairs directly,

1269

control their own lives, the proletariat are placed into the position

1270

of passive electors, who vote for parties who rule for and over them,

1271

in their own name. Moreover, they face the constant danger of the

1272

"vanguard" nullifying even these decisions as "temporary vacillations."

1273

A fine liberation indeed.

1274

1275

Also, as libertarian socialist Maurice Brinton argues, none of the

1276

Bolshevik leaders "saw the proletarian nature of the Russian regime as

1277

primarily and crucially dependent on the exercise of workers' power at

1278

the point of production (i.e. workers' management of production). It

1279

should have been obvious to them as Marxists that if the working class

1280

did not hold economic power, its 'political' power would at best be

1281

insecure and would in fact degenerate." [Op. Cit., p. 42]

1282

1283

With direct working class sovereignty eroded by the Bolsheviks in the

1284

name of indirect, i.e. party, sovereignty it is hardly surprising that

1285

the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes the dictatorship over the

1286

proletariat as Bakunin predicted. With the elimination of functional

1287

democracy and self-management, indirect democracy would not be able to

1288

survive for long in the face of centralised, top-down decision making

1289

by the ruling party.

1290

1291

So hopeless was Trotsky's understanding of socialism and the nature of

1292

a working class social revolution that he even considered the Stalinist

1293

dictatorship to be an expression of the "dictatorship of the

1294

proletariat." He argued that the "bureaucracy has expropriated the

1295

proletariat politically in order to guard its social conquests with its

1296

own methods. The anatomy of society is determined by its economic

1297

relations. So long as the forms of property that have been created by

1298

the October Revolution are not overthrown, the proletariat remains the

1299

ruling class." [The Class Nature of the Soviet State]

1300

1301

Just to stress the point, according to Trotsky, under Stalinism the

1302

proletariat was the ruling class and that Stalin's dictatorship

1303

eliminated what remained (and it was not much) of working class

1304

political influence in order "to guard its social conquests"! What

1305

social conquests could remain if the proletariat was under the heel of

1306

a totalitarian dictatorship? Just one, state ownership of property --

1307

precisely the means by which the (state) bureaucracy enforced its

1308

control over production and so the source of its economic power (and

1309

privileges). To state the obvious, if the working class does not

1310

control the property it is claimed to own then someone else does. The

1311

economic relationship thus generated is a hierarchical one, in which

1312

the working class is an oppressed class. Thus Trotsky identified the

1313

source of the bureaucracy's economic power with "socialism" -- no

1314

wonder his analysis of Stalinism (and vision of socialism) proved so

1315

disastrous.

1316

1317

Trotsky argues that the "liberal-anarchist thought closes its eyes to

1318

the fact that the Bolshevik revolution, with all its repressions, meant

1319

an upheaval of social relations in the interests of the masses, whereas

1320

Stalin's Thermidorian upheaval accompanies the reconstruction of Soviet

1321

society in the interest of a privileged minority." [Stalinism and

1322

Bolshevism] However, social relations are just that, social and so

1323

between individuals and classes -- ownership of property cannot tell

1324

the whole story. What social relations did Bolshevism bring about?

1325

1326

As far as the wage labour social relationship goes (and do not forget

1327

that is the defining feature of capitalism), the Bolsheviks opposed

1328

workers' self-management in favour of, first, "control" over the

1329

capitalists and then one-man management. No change in social

1330

relationships there. Property relations did change in the sense that

1331

the state became the owner of capital rather than individual

1332

capitalists, but the social relationship workers experienced during the

1333

working day and within society was identical. The state bureaucrat

1334

replaced the capitalist.

1335

1336

As for politics, the Bolshevik revolution replaced government with

1337

government. Initially, it was an elected government and so it had the

1338

typical social relationships of representative government. Later, it

1339

became a one party dictatorship -- a situation that did not change

1340

under Stalin. Thus the social relationships there, again, did not

1341

change. The Bolshevik Party became the head of the government. That is

1342

all. This event also saw the reconstruction of Soviet Society in the

1343

interest of a privileged minority -- it is well known that the

1344

Communists gave themselves the best rations, best premises and so on.

1345

1346

Thus the Bolshevik revolution did not change the social relations

1347

people faced and so Trotsky's comments are wishful thinking. The

1348

"interests of the masses" could not, and were not, defended by the

1349

Bolshevik revolution as it did not change the relations of authority in

1350

a society -- the social relationships people experienced remain

1351

unchanged. Perhaps that is why Lenin argued that the proletarian nature

1352

of the Russian regime was ensured by the nature of the ruling party?

1353

There could be no other basis for saying the Bolshevik state was a

1354

workers' state. After all, nationalised property without workers'

1355

self-management does not change social relationships it just changes

1356

who is telling the workers what to do.

1357

1358

The important point to note is that Trotsky argued that the proletariat

1359

could be a ruling class when it had no political influence, never mind

1360

democracy, when subject to a one-party state and bureaucratic

1361

dictatorship and when the social relations of the society were

1362

obviously capitalistic. No wonder he found it impossible to recognise

1363

that dictatorship by the party did not equal dictatorship by the

1364

proletariat.

1365

1366

Therefore, the claim that Trotskyists see the "dictatorship of the

1367

proletariat" as "the rule of one class over another" is, as can be

1368

seen, a joke. Rather they see it as the rule of the party over the rest

1369

of society, including the working class. Even when that party had

1370

become a bureaucratic nightmare, murdering millions and sending

1371

hundreds of thousands to forced labour camps, Trotsky still argued that

1372

the "working class" was still the "ruling class." Not only that, his

1373

political perspective allowed him to justify the suppression of

1374

workers' democracy in the name of the "rule" of the workers. For this

1375

reason, anarchists feel that the real utopians are the Leninists who

1376

believe that party rule equals class rule and that centralised,

1377

hierarchical power in the hands of the few will not become a new form

1378

of class rule. History, we think, supports our politics on this issue

1379

(as in so many others).

1380

1381

Mitchinson argues that "Anarchism's utopian calls to abolish the state

1382

overnight demonstrates neither the understanding of what the state is,

1383

nor the programme of action necessary to achieve the goal it sets

1384

itself." However, as made clear, it is Marxism which is utopian,

1385

believing that rule by a party equals rule by a class and that a state

1386

machine can be utilised by the majority of the population. As Kropotkin

1387

argued, Anarchists "maintain that the State organisation, having been

1388

the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising

1389

their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to

1390

destroy these privileges." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p.

1391

170]

1392

1393

Luigi Fabbri sums up the difference well:

1394

1395

"The mistake of authoritarian communists in this connection is the

1396

belief that fighting and organising are impossible without

1397

submission to a government; and thus they regard anarchists . . . as

1398

the foes of all organisation and all co-ordinated struggle. We, on

1399

the other hand, maintain that not only are revolutionary struggle

1400

and revolutionary organisation possible outside and in spite of

1401

government interference but that, indeed, that is the only effective

1402

way to struggle and organise, for it has the active participation of

1403

all members of the collective unit, instead of their passively

1404

entrusting themselves to the authority of the supreme leaders."

1405

["Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", in The Poverty of Statism,

1406

pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 27]

1407

1408

Mitchinson moves on to the usual Marxist slander that as "a modern

1409

philosophy anarchism developed in the 19th century alongside the

1410

explosive growth of capitalism and its state machine. It represented a

1411

rebellion by a section of the petty bourgeoisie at the loss of their

1412

position in society, driven to the wall by the growth of monopoly." We

1413

have refuted this assertion in another appendix ([5]Reply to errors and

1414

distortions in David McNally's pamphlet "Socialism from Below") and so

1415

will not do so here.

1416

1417

14. Why do anarchists reject the Marxist notion of "conquest of power"?

1418

1419

Mitchinson now decides to quote some anarchists to back up his spurious

1420

argument:

1421

1422

"Their case was argued by Mikhail Bakunin and his supporters in the

1423

First International. At an anarchist conference in 1872 they argued

1424

'The aspirations of the proletariat can have no other aim than the

1425

creation of an absolutely free economic organisation and federation

1426

based on work and equality and wholly independent of any political

1427

government, and such an organisation can only come into being

1428

through the spontaneous action of the proletariat itself...no

1429

political organisation can be anything but the organisation of rule

1430

in the interests of a class and to the detriment of the masses...the

1431

proletariat, should it seize power, would become a ruling, and

1432

exploiting, class...'"

1433

1434

To understand this passage it is necessary to place it in historical

1435

context. In 1872, the proletariat was a minority class within all

1436

nations bar the UK. In almost all nations, the majority of the working

1437

class were either artisans or peasants (hence the reference to "the

1438

masses"). To urge that the proletariat seize power meant to advocate

1439

the class rule of a minority of the working masses. Minority rule could

1440

be nothing else but the dictatorship of a minority over the majority (a

1441

dictatorship in the usual sense of the word), and dictatorships always

1442

become exploitative of the general population.

1443

1444

Thus Mitchinson's "analysis" is ahistoric and, fundamentally,

1445

unscientific and a mockery of materialism.

1446

1447

Moreover, anarchists like Bakunin also made clear that the Marxist

1448

notion of "proletarian dictatorship" did not even mean that the

1449

proletariat as a whole would exercise power. In his words:

1450

1451

"What does it mean, 'the proletariat raised to a governing class?'

1452

Will the entire proletariat head the government? The Germans number

1453

about 40 million. Will all 40 million be members of the government?

1454

The entire nation will rule, but no one would be ruled. Then there

1455

will be no government, there will be no state; but if there is a

1456

state, there will also be those who are ruled, there will be slaves.

1457

1458

"In the Marxists' theory this dilemma is resolved in a simple

1459

fashion. By popular government they mean government of the people by

1460

a small number of representatives elected by the people. So-called

1461

popular representatives and rulers of the state elected by the

1462

entire nation on the basis of universal suffrage -- the last word of

1463

the Marxists, as well as the democratic school -- is a lie behind

1464

which the despotism of a ruling minority is concealed, a lie all the

1465

more dangerous in that it represents itself as the expression of a

1466

sham popular will.

1467

1468

"So . . . it always comes down to the same dismal result: government

1469

of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But

1470

this minority, the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes,

1471

perhaps, of former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or

1472

representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will

1473

begin to look upon the whole workers' world from the heights of the

1474

state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and

1475

their own pretensions to govern the people."

1476

[Statism and Anarchy, p. 178]

1477

1478

Thus anarchists reject the notion of the dictatorship of the

1479

proletariat for two reasons. Firstly, because it excluded the bulk of

1480

the working masses when it was first used by Marx and Engels. Secondly,

1481

because in practice it would mean the dictatorship of the party over

1482

the proletariat. Needless to say, Mitchinson does not mention these

1483

points.

1484

1485

Mitchinson argues that "[a]lthough this sounds radical enough it

1486

nonetheless amounts to a recipe for inaction and disaster." And quotes

1487

Trotsky to explain why:

1488

1489

"To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power

1490

with those who wield it, the exploiters. The essence of every

1491

revolution consisted and consists in putting a new class in power,

1492

thus enabling it to realise its own programme in life. It is

1493

impossible to wage war and to reject victory. It is impossible to

1494

lead the masses towards insurrection without preparing for the

1495

conquest of power."

1496

1497

For anarchists the question immediately is, "power to who"? As is clear

1498

from the writings of Lenin and Trotsky they see the "conquest of power"

1499

not in terms of "putting a new class in power" but, in fact, the

1500

representatives of that class, the vanguard party, into power.

1501

Anarchists, in contrast, argue that organs of working class

1502

self-management are the means of creating and defending a social

1503

revolution as it is the only means that the mass of people can actually

1504

run their own lives and any power over and above these organs means

1505

dictatorship over the working class, a new form of state and class

1506

power.

1507

1508

As Rudolf Rocker argues:

1509

1510

"Let no one object that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' cannot

1511

be compared to run of the mill dictatorship because it is the

1512

dictatorship of a class. Dictatorship of a class cannot exist as

1513

such, for it ends up, in the last analysis, as being the

1514

dictatorship of a given party which arrogates to itself the right to

1515

speak for that class. Thus, the liberal bourgeoisie, in their fight

1516

against despotism, used to speak in the name of the 'people'. . .

1517

1518

"We already know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater.

1519

And we know, too, that the owning classes will never yield up their

1520

privileges spontaneously. On the day of victorious revolution the

1521

workers will have to impose their will on the present owners of the

1522

soil, of the subsoil and of the means of production, which cannot be

1523

done -- let us be clear on this -- without the workers taking the

1524

capital of society into their own hands, and, above all, without

1525

their having demolished the authoritarian structure which is, and

1526

will continue to be, the fortress keeping the masses of the people

1527

under dominion. Such an action is, without doubt, an act of

1528

liberation; a proclamation of social justice; the very essence of

1529

social revolution, which has nothing in common with the utterly

1530

bourgeois principle of dictatorship.

1531

1532

"The fact that a large number of socialist parties have rallied to

1533

the idea of councils, which is the proper mark of libertarian

1534

socialist and revolutionary syndicalists, is a confession,

1535

recognition that the tack they have taken up until now has been the

1536

product of a falsification, a distortion, and that with the councils

1537

the labour movement must create for itself a single organ capable of

1538

carrying into effect the unmitigated socialism that the conscious

1539

proletariat longs for. On the other hand, it ought not to be

1540

forgotten that this abrupt conversion runs the risk of introducing

1541

many alien features into the councils concept, features, that is,

1542

with no relation to the original tasks of socialism, and which have

1543

to be eliminated because they pose a threat to the further

1544

development of the councils. These alien elements are able only to

1545

conceive things from the dictatorial viewpoint. It must be our task

1546

to face up to this risk and warn our class comrades against

1547

experiments which cannot bring the dawn of social emancipation any

1548

nearer -- which indeed, to the contrary, positively postpone it.

1549

1550

"Consequently, our advice is as follows: Everything for the councils

1551

or soviets! No power above them! A slogan which at the same time

1552

will be that of the social revolutionary."

1553

[Anarchism and Sovietism]

1554

1555

Or, as the Bakunin influenced Jura Federation of the First

1556

International put it in 1874, "the dictatorship that we want is one

1557

which the insurgent masses exercise directly, without intermediary of

1558

any committee or government." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the

1559

Impossible, p. 631] In other words, a situation in which the working

1560

masses defend their freedom, their control over their own lives, from

1561

those who seek to replace it with minority rule.

1562

1563

15. What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?

1564

1565

Mitchinson argues that:

1566

1567

"Anarchists see in the degeneration of the Soviet Union into a

1568

totalitarian dictatorship proof that Bakunin was right. In reality,

1569

only Leon Trotsky and Marxism have been able to explain the causes

1570

of that degeneration, finding its roots not in men's heads or

1571

personalities, but in the real life conditions of civil war, armies

1572

of foreign intervention, and the defeat of revolution in Europe."

1573

1574

Needless to say, anarchism explains the causes of the degeneration in a

1575

far more rich way than Mitchinson claims. The underlying assumption of

1576

his "critique" of anarchism is that the politics of the Bolsheviks had

1577

no influence on the outcome of the revolution -- it was a product

1578

purely of objective forces. He also subscribes to the contradictory

1579

idea that Bolshevik politics were essential for the success of that

1580

revolution. The facts of the matter is that people are faced with

1581

choices, choices that arise from the objective conditions that they

1582

face. What decisions they make will be influenced by the ideas they

1583

hold -- they will not occur automatically, as if people were on

1584

auto-pilot -- and their ideas are shaped by the social relationships

1585

they experience. Thus, someone placed into a position of power over

1586

others will act in certain ways, have a certain world view, which would

1587

be alien to someone subject to egalitarian social relations.

1588

1589

So, obviously the "ideas in people's heads" matter, particularly during

1590

a revolution. Someone in favour of centralisation, centralised power

1591

and who equates party rule with class rule (like Lenin and Trotsky),

1592

will act in ways (and create structures) totally different from someone

1593

who believes in decentralisation and federalism. In other words,

1594

political ideas do matter in society. Nor do anarchists leave our

1595

analysis at this obvious fact -- as noted, we also argue that the types

1596

of organisation people create and work in shapes the way they think and

1597

act. This is because specific kinds of organisation have specific

1598

authority relations and so generate specific social relationships.

1599

These obviously affect those subject to them -- a centralised,

1600

hierarchical system will create authoritarian social relationships

1601

which shape those within it in totally different ways than a

1602

decentralised, egalitarian system. That Mitchinson denies this obvious

1603

fact suggests he knows nothing of materialist philosophy.

1604

1605

Moreover, anarchists are aware of the problems facing the revolution.

1606

After all, anarchists were involved in that revolution and wrote some

1607

of the best works on that revolution (for example, Voline's The Unknown

1608

Revolution, Arshinov's The History of the Makhnovist Movement and

1609

Maximov's The Guillotine at Work). However, they point to the obvious

1610

fact that the politics of the Bolsheviks played a key role in how the

1611

revolution developed. While the terrible objective conditions may have

1612

shaped certain aspects of the actions of the Bolsheviks it cannot be

1613

denied that the impulse for them were rooted in Bolshevik theory. After

1614

all, anarchist theory could not justify the suppression of the

1615

functional democracy associated with the factory committees or the

1616

soldiers election of officers in the Red Army. Bolshevik theory could,

1617

and did.

1618

1619

Indeed, Trotsky was still claiming in 1937 that the "Bolshevik party

1620

achieved in the civil war the correct combination of military art and

1621

Marxist politics." [Stalinism and Bolshevism] In other words, the

1622

Bolshevik policies implemented during the Civil War were the correct,

1623

Marxist, ones. Also, although Lenin described the NEP (New Economic

1624

Policy) of 1921 as a 'defeat', at no stage did he describe the

1625

suppression of soviet democracy and workers' control in such language.

1626

In other words, Bolshevik politics did play a role, a key role, in the

1627

degeneration of the Russian Revolution and to deny it is to deny

1628

reality. In the words of Maurice Brinton:

1629

1630

"[I]n relation to industrial policy there is a clear-cut and

1631

incontrovertible link between what happened under Lenin and Trotsky

1632

and the later practice of Stalinism. We know that many on the

1633

revolutionary left will find this statement hard to swallow. We are

1634

convinced however that any honest reading of the facts cannot but

1635

lead to this conclusion. The more one unearths about this period

1636

[1917-21], the more difficult it becomes to define -- or even see --

1637

the 'gulf' allegedly separating what happened in Lenin's time from

1638

what happened later. Real knowledge of the facts also makes it

1639

impossible to accept . . . that the whole course of events was

1640

'historically inevitable' and 'objectively determined.' Bolshevik

1641

ideology and practice were themselves important and sometimes

1642

decisive factors in the equation, at every critical stage of this

1643

critical period." [Op. Cit., p. 84]

1644

1645

We should also point out that far from "Leon Trotsky and Marxism"

1646

explaining the degeneration of the Russian revolution, Trotsky could

1647

not understand that a "totalitarian dictatorship" could be an

1648

expression of a new minority class and presented a decidedly false

1649

analysis of the Soviet Union as a "degenerated workers' state." That

1650

analysis led numerous Trotskyists to support these dictatorships and

1651

oppose workers' revolts against them. In addition, Trotsky's own

1652

reservations were only really voiced after he had lost power. Moreover,

1653

he never acknowledged how his own policies (such as the elimination of

1654

soldiers democracy, the militarisation of labour, etc.) played a key

1655

role in the rise of the bureaucracy and Stalin.

1656

1657

Ultimately, every explanation of the degeneration of the Russian

1658

revolution by Trotskyists ends up as an appeal to "exception

1659

circumstances" -- they blame the rise of Stalinism on the Civil War, to

1660

the "exceptional circumstances" created by that war. This can be

1661

faulted for two reasons.

1662

1663

Firstly, as Trotsky himself argued (with respect to the Spanish

1664

Anarchists) "did not the leaders of German social democracy invoke, in

1665

their time, the same excuse? Naturally, civil war is not a peaceful and

1666

ordinary but an 'exceptional circumstance.' . . . we do severely blame

1667

the anarchist theory, which seemed wholly suitable for times of peace,

1668

but had to be dropped rapidly as soon as the 'exceptional circumstance'

1669

of the . . . revolution had begun." [Stalinism and Bolshevism] Needless

1670

to say, he did not apply his critique to his own politics, which were

1671

also a form of the "exceptional circumstances" excuse. Given how

1672

quickly Bolshevik "principles" (as expressed in The State and

1673

Revolution) were dropped, we can only assume that Bolshevik ideas are

1674

also suitable purely for "times of peace" as well.

1675

1676

Secondly, this "explanation" basically argues that, if the bourgeois

1677

did not defend their power in 1917, then Leninism would have worked out

1678

fine. As Mitchinson himself noted above, belief that the bourgeois will

1679

just go away without a fight is "an infantile flight of fancy." As

1680

Lenin argued, "revolution . . ., in its development, would give rise to

1681

exceptionally complicated circumstances" and "[r]evolution is the

1682

sharpest, most furious, desperate class war and civil war. Not a single

1683

great revolution in history has escaped civil war. No one who does not

1684

live in a shell could imagine that civil war is conceivable without

1685

exceptionally complicated circumstances." [Will the Bolsheviks Maintain

1686

Power?, p. 80 and p. 81]

1687

1688

If the Civil War did solely produce the degeneration of the Russian

1689

Revolution then all we can hope for is that in the next social

1690

revolution, the civil war Lenin argued was inevitable is not as

1691

destructive as the Russian one. Hope is not much of a basis to build a

1692

"scientific" socialism -- but then again, neither is "fate" much of a

1693

basis to explain the degeneration of the Russian Revolution but that is

1694

what Trotskyists do argue.

1695

1696

We discuss the Russian Revolution in more detail in the appendix on

1697

[6]" What happened during the Russian Revolution?" of the FAQ and will

1698

not do so here. However, we can point out the experience of the

1699

anarchist Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine during the Russian

1700

Revolution. Facing exactly the same objective conditions they

1701

encouraged soviet democracy, held regular congresses of workers and

1702

peasants (the Bolsheviks tried to ban two of them), defended freedom of

1703

the press and of association and so on. If objective conditions

1704

determined Bolshevik policies, why did they not also determine the

1705

policies of the Makhnovists? This practical example indicates that the

1706

usual Trotskyist explanation of the degeneration of the Revolution is

1707

false.

1708

1709

Perhaps it is because of this, that it showed an alternative to

1710

Bolshevik politics existed and worked, that Trotskyists slander it?

1711

Trotsky himself asserted that the Makhnovists were simply "kulaks" on

1712

horseback and that Makhno's "followers . . . [expressed] a militant

1713

anti-Semitism." [Lenin and Trotsky, Kronstadt, p. 80] We discuss the

1714

Makhnovist movement in the appendix on [7]"Why does the Makhnovist

1715

movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?" of the FAQ and

1716

there we refute claims that the Makhnovist movement was a kulak (rich

1717

peasant) one. However, the charge of "militant anti-Semitism" is a

1718

serious one and so we will expose its falsehood here and well as in

1719

[8]section 9 of the specified appendix.

1720

1721

The best source to refute claims of anti-Semitism is to quote the work

1722

of the Jewish anarchist Voline. He summarises the extensive evidence

1723

against such claims:

1724

1725

"We could cover dozens of pages with extensive and irrefutable

1726

proofs of the falseness of these assertions. We could mention

1727

articles and proclamations by Makhno and the Council of

1728

Revolutionary Insurgents denouncing anti-Semitism. We could tell of

1729

spontaneous acts by Makhno himself and other insurgents against the

1730

slightest manifestation of the anti-Semitic spirit on the part of a

1731

few isolated and misguided unfortunates in the army and the

1732

population. . . One of the reasons for the execution of Grigoriev by

1733

the Makhnovists was his anti-Semitism and the immense pogrom he

1734

organised at Elizabethgrad. . . We could cite a whole series of

1735

similar facts, but we do not find it necessary . . . and will

1736

content ourselves with mentioning briefly the following essential

1737

facts:

1738

1739

"1. A fairly important part in the Makhnovist movement was played by

1740

revolutionists of Jewish origin.

1741

1742

"2. Several members of the Education and Propaganda Commission were

1743

Jewish.

1744

1745

"3. Besides many Jewish combatants in various units of the army,

1746

there was a battery composed entirely of Jewish artillery men and a

1747

Jewish infantry unit.

1748

1749

"4. Jewish colonies in the Ukraine furnished many volunteers to the

1750

Insurrectionary Army.

1751

1752

"5. In general the Jewish population . . . took an active part in

1753

all the activities of the movement. The Jewish agricultural colonies

1754

. . . participated in the regional assemblies of workers, peasants

1755

and partisans; they sent their delegates to the regional

1756

Revolutionary Military Council. . ."

1757

[The Unknown Revolution, pp. 967-8]

1758

1759

Voline also quotes the eminent Jewish writer and historian M.

1760

Tcherikover about the question of the Makhnovists and anti-Semitism.

1761

The Jewish historian states "with certainty that, on the whole, the

1762

behaviour of Makhno's army cannot be compared with that of the other

1763

armies which were operating in Russian during the events 1917-21 . . .

1764

It is undeniable that, of all these armies, including the Red Army, the

1765

Makhnovists behaved best with regard the civil population in general

1766

and the Jewish population in particular . . . The proportion of

1767

justified complaints against the Makhnovist army, in comparison with

1768

the others, is negligible. . . Do not speak of pogroms alleged to have

1769

been organised by Makhno himself. That is a slander or an error.

1770

Nothing of the sort occurred. As for the Makhnovist Army . . . [n]ot

1771

once have I been able to prove the existence of a Makhnovist unit at

1772

the place a pogrom against the Jews took place. Consequently, the

1773

pogroms in question could not have been the work of the Makhnovists."

1774

[quoted by Voline, Op. Cit., p. 699]

1775

1776

Given that the Red Army agreed to two pacts with the Makhnovists, we

1777

can only surmise, if Trotsky thought he was telling the truth, that

1778

Trotsky was a hypocrite. However, Trotsky was either consciously lying

1779

or in error -- unfortunately the Trotskyist publishers of his words did

1780

not bother to note that his assertion was false. We are sorry for this

1781

slight digression, but many Trotskyists take Trotsky's words at face

1782

value and repeat his slander -- unless we indicate their false nature

1783

they may not take our argument seriously.

1784

1785

Mitchinson continues by stating:

1786

1787

"The position of anarchism only serves to endorse the bourgeois

1788

slander that Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism."

1789

1790

This appeal against slander is ironic from someone who writes an

1791

article full of it. But, of course, it is bourgeois slander that he

1792

objects too -- Trotskyist slander (and falsification) is fine.

1793

1794

The question of whether it is a "bourgeois slander" to argue (with

1795

supporting evidence) that "Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism" is an

1796

important one. Trotskyists often point out that anarchist and

1797

libertarian Marxist critiques of Bolshevism sound similar to bourgeois

1798

ones and that anarchist accounts of Bolshevik crimes against the

1799

revolution and working class give ammunition to the defenders of the

1800

status quo. However, this seems more like an attempt to stop critical

1801

analysis of the Russian Revolution than a serious political position.

1802

Yes, the bourgeois do argue that Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism

1803

-- however they do so to discredit all forms of socialism and radical

1804

social change. Anarchists, on the other hand, analyse the revolution,

1805

see how the Bolsheviks acted and draw conclusions from the facts in

1806

order to push forward revolutionary thought, tactics and ideas. Just

1807

because the conclusions are similar does not mean that they are invalid

1808

-- to label criticism of Bolshevism as "bourgeois slander" is nothing

1809

less than attempt to put people off investigating the Russian

1810

Revolution.

1811

1812

There is are course essential differences between the "bourgeois

1813

slanders" against the Bolsheviks and the anarchist critique. The

1814

bourgeois slander is based on an opposition to the revolution as such

1815

while the anarchist critique affirms it. The bourgeois slanders are not

1816

the result of the experiences of the working masses and revolutionaries

1817

subject to the Bolshevik regime as the anarchist is. Similarly, the

1818

bourgeois slanders ignore the nature of capitalist society while the

1819

anarchist critique points out that the degeneration of the Bolshevik

1820

state and party were a result of it not breaking with bourgeois ideas

1821

and organisational structures. Ultimately, it is not a case of

1822

"bourgeois slanders" but rather an honest evaluation of the events of

1823

the Russian Revolution from a working class perspective.

1824

1825

To use an analogy, it is common place for the bourgeois press and

1826

ideologists to attack trade unions as being bureaucratic and

1827

unresponsive to the needs of their members. It is also common place for

1828

members of those same trade unions to think exactly the same. Indeed,

1829

it is a common refrain of Trotskyists that the trade unions are

1830

bureaucratic and need to be reformed in a more democratic fashion

1831

(indeed, Mitchinson calls for the unions to be "transformed" in his

1832

essay). Needless to say, the bourgeois comments are "correct" in the

1833

sense that the trade unions do have a bureaucracy -- their reasons for

1834

stating that truth serve their interests and their solutions aid those

1835

interests and not those of the members of the unions. Could a

1836

Trotskyist say that it was a "bourgeois slander" if the capitalist

1837

press point to the bureaucratic nature of the unions when their own

1838

papers do the same?

1839

1840

While it may be in the interests of the ruling elite and its apologists

1841

to scream about "bourgeois slanders", it hinders the process of working

1842

class self-emancipation to do so. As intended, in all likelihood.

1843

1844

16. Did anarchists reject "the need for organisation in the shape of trade

1845

unions"?

1846

1847

Mitchinson now decides to "expose" anarchism:

1848

1849

"In its early days, this modern anarchism found a certain support

1850

amongst the workers. However, through the course of struggle workers

1851

learned the need for organisation in the shape of the trade unions,

1852

and also for political organisation which led to the building of the

1853

mass workers parties."

1854

1855

To see the total nonsense of this claim we need only to turn to Marx.

1856

In his words, Bakunin thought that the "working class . . . must only

1857

organise themselves by trades-unions." [Marx, Engels and Lenin,

1858

Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 48] Bakunin himself argued "the

1859

natural organisation of the masses . . . is organisation based on the

1860

various ways that their various types of work define their day-to-day

1861

life; it is organisation by trade association." [The Basic Bakunin, p.

1862

139] Kropotkin argued that the "union [syndicat] is absolutely

1863

necessary. It is the only form of workers' grouping which permits the

1864

direct struggle to be maintained against capital without falling into

1865

parliamentarism." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of

1866

Revolutionary Anarchism, p. 269]

1867

1868

So much for anarchism being against trade unions (as Mitchinson

1869

implies). As for mass workers parties, well, history proved Bakunin

1870

right -- such parties became corrupted, bureaucratic and reformist. For

1871

Mitchinson the last 130 years have not existed.

1872

1873

He goes on to argue that "Bakunin and co. denounced participation in

1874

parliament, or the fight for reforms as a betrayal of the revolution,

1875

they 'rejected all political action not having as its immediate and

1876

direct objective the triumph of the workers over capitalism, and as a

1877

consequence, the abolition of the state.'"

1878

1879

We must first note that the Bakunin quote presented does not support

1880

Mitchinson's assertions -- unless you think that reforms can only be

1881

won via participation in parliament (something anarchists reject). The

1882

reason why Bakunin rejected "all political action" (i.e. bourgeois

1883

politics -- electioneering in other words) is not explained. We will

1884

now do so.

1885

1886

Bakunin did denounce participation in parliament. History proved him

1887

right. Participation in parliament ensured the corruption of the Social

1888

Democratic Parties, the Greens and a host of other radical and

1889

socialist organisations. Mitchinson seems to have forgotten the fights

1890

against reformism that continually occurred in the Social Democratic

1891

Parties at end of the nineteenth and start of the twentieth centuries,

1892

a fight which ended with the defeat of the revolutionary wing and the

1893

decision to support the nation state in the first world war. The actual

1894

experience of using parliament confirmed Bakunin's prediction that when

1895

"the workers . . . send common workers . . . to Legislative Assemblies

1896

. . . The worker-deputies, transplanted into a bourgeois environment,

1897

into an atmosphere of purely bourgeois ideas, will in fact cease to be

1898

workers and, becoming Statesmen, they will become bourgeois . . . For

1899

men do not make their situations; on the contrary, men are made by

1900

them." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 108]

1901

1902

What is not true, however, is that claim that Bakunin thought that "the

1903

fight for reforms [w]as a betrayal of the revolution." Bakunin was a

1904

firm believer in the importance of struggles for reforms, but struggles

1905

of a specific kind -- namely struggles to win reforms which are based

1906

on the direct action by workers themselves:

1907

1908

"What policy should the International [Workers' Association] follow

1909

during th[e] somewhat extended time period that separates us from

1910

this terrible social revolution . . . the International will give

1911

labour unrest in all countries an essentially economic character,

1912

with the aim of reducing working hours and increasing salary, by

1913

means of the association of the working masses . . . It will [also]

1914

propagandise its principles . . . [Op. Cit., p. 109]

1915

1916

"And indeed, as soon as a worker believes that the economic state of

1917

affairs can be radically transformed in the near future, he begins

1918

to fight, in association with his comrades, for the reduction of his

1919

working hours and for an increase in his salary. . . through

1920

practice and action . . . the progressive expansion and development

1921

of the economic struggle will bring him more and more to recognise

1922

his true enemies: the privileged classes, including the clergy, the

1923

bourgeois, and the nobility; and the State, which exists only to

1924

safeguard all the privileges of those classes."

1925

[Op. Cit., p. 103]

1926

1927

This argument for reforms by direct action and workers' associations

1928

was a basic point of agreement in those sections of the First

1929

International which supported Bakunin's ideas. In the words of an

1930

anarchist member of the Jura Federation writing in 1875:

1931

1932

"Instead of begging the State for a law compelling employers to make

1933

them work only so many hours, the trade associations directly impose

1934

this reform on the employers; in this way, instead of a legal text

1935

which remains a dead letter, a real economic change is effected by

1936

the direct initiative of the workers . . . if the workers devoted

1937

all their activity and energy to the organisation of their trades

1938

into societies of resistance, trade federations, local and regional,

1939

if, by meetings, lectures, study circles, papers and pamphlets, they

1940

kept up a permanent socialist and revolutionary agitation; if by

1941

linking practice to theory, they realised directly, without any

1942

bourgeois and governmental intervention, all immediately possible

1943

reforms, reforms advantageous not to a few workers but to the

1944

labouring mass -- certainly then the cause of labour would be better

1945

served than . . . legal agitation." [quoted by Caroline Cahm,

1946

Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, p. 226]

1947

1948

So much for Bakunin or the libertarian wing of the First International

1949

being against reforms or the struggle for reforms. Anarchists have not

1950

changed their minds on this issue.

1951

1952

17. Why do anarchists reject political activity?

1953

1954

After spreading falsehoods against Bakunin, Mitchinson states that:

1955

1956

"Marxism fights for the conquest of political power by the working

1957

class and the building of a socialist society, under which the state

1958

will wither away.

1959

1960

"Until then should workers refrain from political activity? Should

1961

they reject all reforms that might improve their existence? Nothing

1962

would please Blair or the bosses more."

1963

1964

It is ironic that Mitchinson mentions Blair. He is, after all, the

1965

leader of the Labour Party -- as mass workers party formed from the

1966

trade unions to use political action to gain reforms within capitalism.

1967

The current state of Labour indicates well the comment that "in

1968

proportion as the socialists become a power in the present bourgeois

1969

society and State, their socialism must die out." [Kropotkin,

1970

Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 189] It is as if the history of

1971

Social Democracy (or even the German Greens) does not exist for

1972

Mitchinson -- he points to Blair to refute anarchist analysis that

1973

Parliamentary politics corrupts the parties that use it! How strange,

1974

to ignore the results of socialists actually using "political activity"

1975

(and we must stress that anarchists traditionally use the term

1976

"political action" to refer to electioneering, i.e. bourgeois politics,

1977

only). Obviously reality is something which can be ignored when

1978

creating a political theory.

1979

1980

Needless to say, as noted above, anarchists do not "reject all

1981

reforms." We have quoted Bakunin, now we quote Kropotkin -- "the

1982

Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers'

1983

organisations which carry on the direct struggle of Labour against

1984

Capital and its protector, the State." He continued by arguing that

1985

such struggle, "better than any other indirect means, permits the

1986

worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the present conditions

1987

of work, while it opens his eyes to the evil done by Capitalism and the

1988

State that supports it, and wakes up his thoughts concerning the

1989

possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange without

1990

the intervention of the capitalist and the State." [Evolution and

1991

Environment, pp. 82-3]

1992

1993

Thus we do not think that political action (electioneering) equates to

1994

reforms nor even is the best means of winning reforms in the first

1995

place. Anarchists argue that by direct action we can win reforms.

1996

1997

Mitchinson continues his diatribe:

1998

1999

"Of course not, we must advocate the struggle for every gain no

2000

matter how minor, and use any and every field open to us. Only the

2001

dilettante can reject better wages or a health care system.

2002

Precisely through these struggles, and the struggles to transform

2003

the workers organisations the unions and the parties, we learn and

2004

become more powerful and bring closer the day when it will be

2005

possible to transform society for good."

2006

2007

As noted, anarchists do not reject reforms. Only a dilettante

2008

misrepresents the position of his enemies. And, as can be seen from the

2009

above quotes by Bakunin and Kropotkin, anarchists agree with

2010

Mitchinson's comments. Anarchists agree on the need to win reforms by

2011

direct action, which necessitates the creation of new forms of working

2012

class organisation based on firm libertarian principles and tactics --

2013

organisations like workers' councils, factory committees, community

2014

assemblies and so on.

2015

2016

However, when looking at the fields of struggle open to us, we evaluate

2017

them based on a materialist basis -- looking at the implications of the

2018

tactics in theory and how they actually worked out in practice.

2019

Mitchinson obviously refuses to do this. Anarchists, on the other hand,

2020

base their politics on such an evaluation. For example, Bakunin would

2021

have been aware of Proudhon's experiences in the French National

2022

Assembly during the 1848 revolution:

2023

2024

"As soon as I set foot in the parliamentary Sinai, I ceased to be in

2025

touch with the masses; because I was absorbed by my legislative

2026

work, I entirely lost sight of current events . . . One must have

2027

lived in that isolator which is called the National Assembly to

2028

realise how the men who are most completely ignorant of the state of

2029

the country are almost always those who represent it . . . fear of

2030

the people is the sickness of all those who belong to authority; the

2031

people, for those in power, are the enemy." [Proudhon, quoted by

2032

Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 244]

2033

2034

Similarly, the practical experiences of a socialist elected into

2035

Parliament would be easy to predict -- they would be swamped by

2036

bourgeois politics, issues and activities. Anarchism gained such

2037

socialists elected to parliament as Johann Most and Ferdinand

2038

Nieuwenhuis who soon released the correctness of the anarchist

2039

analysis. Thus actual experience confirmed the soundness of anarchist

2040

politics. Mitchinson, on the other hand, has to deny history -- indeed,

2041

he fails to mention the history of Social Democracy at all in his

2042

article.

2043

2044

Thus the claim that we should use "every field open to us" is

2045

idealistic nonsense, at total odds with any claim to use scientific

2046

techniques of analysis (i.e. to being a scientific socialist) or a

2047

supporter of materialist philosophy. It means the rejection of

2048

historical analysis and the embrace of ahistoric wishful thinking.

2049

2050

Moreover, why do the workers need to "transform" their own

2051

organisations in the first place? Perhaps because they are bureaucratic

2052

organisations in which power is centralised at the top, in a few hands?

2053

Why did this happen, if fighting for reforms by any suitable means

2054

(including electioneering) was their rationale? Perhaps because the

2055

wrong people are in positions of power? But why are they the wrong

2056

people? Because they are right-wing, have reformist ideas, etc. Why do

2057

they have reformist ideas? Here Mitchinson must fall silent, because

2058

obviously they have reformist ideas because the organisations and

2059

activities they are part of are reformist through and through. The

2060

tactics (using elections) and organisational structure (centralisation

2061

of power) bred such ideas -- as Bakunin and other anarchists predicted.

2062

Mitchinson's politics cannot explain why this occurs, which explains

2063

why Lenin was so surprised when German Social Democracy supported its

2064

ruling class during the First World War.

2065

2066

18. How do anarchists struggle for reforms under capitalism?

2067

2068

Mitchinson continues his distortion of anarchism by arguing:

2069

2070

"Marxists fight for every reform, whilst at the same time explaining

2071

that while capitalism continues none of these advances are safe.

2072

Only socialism can really solve the problems of society."

2073

2074

As noted above, anarchists also fight for every reform possible -- but

2075

by direct action, by the strength of working people in their "natural

2076

organisations" and "social power" (to use Bakunin's words). We also

2077

argue that reforms are always in danger -- that is why we need to have

2078

strong, direct action based organisations and self-reliance. If we

2079

leave it to leaders to protect (never mind win reforms) we would not

2080

have them for long. Given that Labour governments have whittled

2081

previous reforms just as much as Conservative ones, anarchists feel our

2082

strategy is the relevant one.

2083

2084

Mitchinson continues:

2085

2086

"Our modern day anarchists, Reclaim the Streets and others, have no

2087

support in Britain amongst the organised workers."

2088

2089

Which is not true, as RTS and other anarchists do seek influence with

2090

the organised workers (and the unorganised ones, and the unemployed,

2091

etc.). They have invited rank-and-file trade union activists to their

2092

demonstrations to speak, trade unionists are members of anarchist

2093

organisations, etc. Anarchists are at the forefront of supporting

2094

strikers, particularly when their union betrays their struggle and does

2095

not support them. For example, during the Liverpool dockers strike RTS

2096

and the dockers formed a common front, organised common demonstrations

2097

and so on. The trade unions did nothing to support the dockers, RTS and

2098

other anarchist groups did. That in itself indicates the weakness of

2099

Mitchinson's claims. It would also be useful to point out that

2100

Trotskyists have little support amongst organised workers as well.

2101

2102

Moreover, anarchists do not seek to become part of the trade union

2103

bureaucracy and so their influence cannot be easily gauged.

2104

2105

After asserting these dubious "facts" about anarchist influence, he

2106

continues:

2107

2108

"Some radicalised youth however are attracted to their 'direct

2109

action' stance. There is a vacuum left by the absence of a mass

2110

Labour youth organisation which, fighting for a socialist programme,

2111

could attract these young workers and students. With no lead being

2112

given by the tops of the unions, and Labour in government attacking

2113

young people, that vacuum can be temporarily and partly filled by

2114

groups like Reclaim the Streets."

2115

2116

Needless to say, Mitchinson does not pose the question why the Labour

2117

government is attacking "young people" (and numerous other sections of

2118

the working class). Why has the Labour Party, a mass workers party

2119

which uses elections to gain reforms, been attacking (as it has always

2120

done, we must note) its support? If its because the leaders are

2121

"right-wing" then why have the membership supported them? Why have the

2122

"right-wing" gained such influence? Also, why is there no "mass Labour

2123

youth organisation"? And why should "young people" join an organisation

2124

which is part of the party which is attacking them? And why are the

2125

"tops of the unions" not giving a "lead"? Perhaps because its not in

2126

their interests to do so? Because they hate direct action and radical

2127

workers as much as the bosses?

2128

2129

Mitchinson's "analysis" is question begging in the extreme.

2130

2131

He continues:

2132

2133

"What action do they propose though? In their press statement

2134

(2/5/00) they explain, 'We were not protesting. Under the shadow of

2135

an irrelevant parliament we were planting the seeds of a society

2136

where ordinary people are in control of their land, their resources,

2137

their food and their decision making. The garden symbolised an urge

2138

to be self-reliant rather than dependent on capitalism.'"

2139

2140

Firstly, we should point out that having access to land is a key way

2141

for workers to be independent of capitalism. Perhaps Mitchinson forgets

2142

Marx's discussion of the colonies in chapter 33 of Capital? In it Marx

2143

discusses how access to land allowed immigrants to America and

2144

Australia to reject wage labour (i.e. capitalism) by providing them

2145

with the means to survive without selling themselves on the labour

2146

market to survive. The state had to be used to enforce the laws of

2147

supply and demand by restricting access to the land. Or, perhaps, he

2148

had forgotten Marx's discussion in chapter 27 of Capital of the role of

2149

enclosures in creating a dispossessed mass of people who were forced,

2150

by necessity, to become the first generation of wage slaves? Either

2151

way, access to the land was (and still is, in many countries) a means

2152

of being independent of capitalism -- and one which the state acts to

2153

destroy.

2154

2155

Secondly, the garden was a symbol of a communist society, not an

2156

expression of the type of society RTS and other anarchists desire. So,

2157

as a symbol of a anti-capitalist vision, the garden is a good one given

2158

the history of state violence used to separate working people from the

2159

land and propel them into the labour market. However, it is only a

2160

symbol and not, obviously, to be taken as an example of the future

2161

society RTS or other anarchists desire. Only someone lacking in

2162

imagination could confuse a symbol with a vision -- as the press

2163

release states it "celebrated the possibility of a world that

2164

encourages co-operation and sharing rather than one which rewards

2165

greed, individualism and competition."

2166

2167

Thirdly, as their press release states, "Guerrilla Gardening is not a

2168

protest; by its very nature it is a creative peaceful celebration of

2169

the growing global anticapitalist movement." Mitchinson attacks the

2170

action for being something it was never intended to be.

2171

2172

He "analyses" the RTS press release:

2173

2174

"The fact that parliament appears powerless to prevent job losses or

2175

the destruction of the environment, only demonstrates that it serves

2176

the interests of capitalism."

2177

2178

Very true, as Kropotkin argued the "State is there to protect

2179

exploitation, speculation and private property; it is itself the

2180

by-product of the rapine of the people. The proletariat must rely on

2181

his own hands; he can expect nothing of the State. It is nothing more

2182

than an organisation devised to hinder emancipation at all costs."

2183

[Words of a Rebel, p. 27] He argues elsewhere that "small groups of men

2184

[and women] were imbued with the . . . spirit of revolt. They also

2185

rebelled -- sometimes with the hope of partial success; for example

2186

winning a strike and of obtaining bread for their children . . .

2187

Without the menace contained in such revolts, no serious concession has

2188

ever been wrung by the people from governing classes." [Evolution and

2189

Environment, p. 103]

2190

2191

Mitchinson seems to agree:

2192

2193

"However, under pressure from below it is possible to introduce

2194

reforms through parliament that are in the interests of ordinary

2195

people."

2196

2197

Thus reforms are possible, but only if we rely on ourselves, organise

2198

pressure from below and use direct action to force parliament to act

2199

(if that is required). Which is what anarchists have always argued.

2200

Without anti-parliamentary action, parliament will ignore the

2201

population. That is what anarchists have always argued -- we have to

2202

reply on our own organisations, solidarity and direct action to change

2203

things for the better. Faced with such a movement, parliament would

2204

introduce reforms regardless of who was a member of it. Without such a

2205

movement, you end up with Tony Blair. Thus Mitchinson is confused -- by

2206

his own logic, the anarchists are correct, we have to work outside

2207

parliament and electioneering in order to be effective.

2208

2209

He continues:

2210

2211

"It is no use declaring parliament to be irrelevant, and turning

2212

your back on it when the majority do not agree, and still look to

2213

government to make their lives better. This is the mirror image of

2214

the sects attitude to the Labour Party. Any and every avenue which

2215

can be used to improve our lives must be used."

2216

2217

How do you change the opinion of the majority? By changing your

2218

position to match theirs? Of course not. You change their position by

2219

argument and proving that direct action is more effective in making

2220

their lives better than looking to government. Mitchinson would have a

2221

fit if someone argued "it is no use declaring capitalism to be wrong

2222

and fighting against it when the majority do not agree and still look

2223

to it to make their lives better." If the majority do not agree with

2224

you, then you try and change their opinion -- you do not accept that

2225

opinion and hope it goes away by itself!

2226

2227

Mitchinson seems to be following Lenin when he argued "[y]ou must not

2228

sink to the level of the masses . . . You must tell them the bitter

2229

truth. You are duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and

2230

parliamentary prejudices what they are -- prejudices. But at the same

2231

time you must soberly follow the actual state of the

2232

class-consciousness . . . of all the toiling masses." [Left-wing

2233

Communism: An Infantile Disorder, p. 41] Obviously, you cannot tell

2234

workers the bitter truth and at the same time follow their prejudices.

2235

In practice, if you follow their prejudices you cannot help but

2236

encourage faith in parliament, social democratic parties, leaders and

2237

so on. Progress is achieved by discussing issues with people, not

2238

ducking the question of political issues in favour of saying what the

2239

majority want to hear (which is what the capitalist media and education

2240

system encourage them to believe in the first place). As a means of

2241

encouraging revolutionary thought it is doomed to failure.

2242

2243

Also, just to stress the point, any and every avenue which can be used

2244

to improve our lives must be used but only if it actually is

2245

revolutionary and does not place obstacles in the process of social

2246

change. Parliamentary action has been proven time and time again to be

2247

a false way for radical change -- it only ends up turning radicals into

2248

supporters of the status quo. It makes as much sense as arguing that

2249

any and every avenue must be used to cure a disease, including those

2250

which give you a new disease in its place.

2251

2252

19. How does Mitchinson distorts the use of the term "Self-reliance"?

2253

2254

Mitchinson argues that:

2255

2256

"In any case this 'self-reliance' is no alternative. Self-reliance

2257

won't get electricity into your house, educate your children or

2258

treat you when you are ill."

2259

2260

No anarchist and no one in RTS ever claimed it would. We use the term

2261

"self-reliance" in a totally different way -- as anyone familiar with

2262

anarchist or RTS theory would know. We use it to describe individuals

2263

who think for themselves, question authority, act for themselves and do

2264

not follow leaders. No anarchist uses the term to describe some sort of

2265

peasant life-style. But then why let facts get in the way of a nice

2266

diatribe?

2267

2268

He continues:

2269

2270

"We have the resources to cater for all of society's needs, the only

2271

problem is that we do not own them."

2272

2273

Actually, the real problem is that we do not control them. The examples

2274

of Nationalised industries and the Soviet Union should make this clear.

2275

In theory, they were both owned by their populations but, in practice,

2276

they were effectively owned by those who managed them -- state

2277

bureaucrats and managers. They were not used to cater for our needs,

2278

but rather the needs of those who controlled them. For this reason

2279

anarchists argue that common ownership without workers' self-management

2280

in the workplace and community would be little more than state

2281

capitalism (wage labour would still exist, but the state would replace

2282

the boss).

2283

2284

He continues with his distortion of the concept of "self-reliance":

2285

2286

"Individualism (self-reliance) cannot be an alternative to

2287

socialism, where all the resources of society are at all of our

2288

disposal, and equally we all contribute what we can to society."

2289

2290

Firstly, anarchists are socialists and mostly seek a (libertarian)

2291

communist society where the resources of the world are at our disposal.

2292

2293

Secondly, self-reliance has little to do with "individualism" -- it has

2294

a lot to do with individuality, however. The difference is important.

2295

2296

Thirdly, in a part of the press release strangely unquoted by

2297

Mitchinson, RTS argue that their action "celebrated the possibility of

2298

a world that encourages co-operation and sharing rather than one which

2299

rewards greed, individualism and competition." RTS are well aware that

2300

self-reliance does not equal individualism and they are very clear that

2301

oppose individualism and desire co-operation. Given that Mitchinson

2302

quotes from their press release, he must know this and yet he asserts

2303

the opposite.

2304

2305

Mitchinson seems to equate self-reliance with "individualism" and so,

2306

presumably, capitalism. However, capitalists do not want self-reliant

2307

workers, they want order takers, people who will not question their

2308

authority. As David Noble points out, after an experiment in workers'

2309

control General Electric replaces it with a the regime that was

2310

"designed to 'break' the pilots of their new found 'habits' of

2311

self-reliance, self-discipline, and self-respect." [Forces of

2312

Production, p. 307]

2313

2314

Capitalists know the danger of self-reliant people. Self-reliant people

2315

question authority, think for themselves, do not follow leaders and

2316

bring these abilities into any groups they join. Thus self-reliance is

2317

not purely an individual thing, it also refers to groups and classes.

2318

Anarchists desire to see a self-reliant working class -- a class which

2319

makes its own decisions and does not follow leaders. Thus, for

2320

anarchists, self-reliance refers to both individuals and groups (just

2321

as self-management and self-liberation does). Needless to say, for

2322

those in authority or those seeking authority self-reliance is an evil

2323

thing which must be combated. Hence Mitchinson's diatribe -- it is the

2324

cry of the would-be leader who is afraid his followers will not respect

2325

his authority.

2326

2327

20. Is anarchism an example of "Philosophical idealism"?

2328

2329

He turns to the May Day demonstration:

2330

2331

"Guerrilla gardening and its related varieties that have sprung up

2332

in various places, is nothing more than an offshoot of the old

2333

utopian idea of changing society by example."

2334

2335

Actually, it was a specific demonstration to encourage people to get

2336

involved in collective action, to have a good time and challenge

2337

authority and the status quo. It was an attempt to change society by

2338

example only in the sense that it would encourage others to act, to

2339

challenge the status quo and get involved in collective action. If

2340

Mitchinson was consistent he would have to oppose every demonstration

2341

that occurred before the final insurrection that created the "workers'

2342

state" -- a demonstration is, by its very nature, an example to others

2343

of what is possible, an example of our collective strength and our

2344

desire for change. You may be critical of the nature of the guerrilla

2345

gardening action (and many anarchists are), but you cannot misrepresent

2346

its nature as Mitchinson does and be expected to be taken seriously.

2347

2348

He continues:

2349

2350

"The roots of this scheme lie in idealist philosophy. Philosophical

2351

idealism refers to the notion that people's actions are a

2352

consequence of their thoughts, that ideas and not our conditions of

2353

life determine our outlook. When, through a long process of

2354

accumulation, we change people's minds, then they will live

2355

differently, capitalism will simply be redundant. The capitalist

2356

class themselves will presumably sit idly by and watch their system

2357

fall apart."

2358

2359

Given that the "anti-capitalist" demonstrations have meet extensive

2360

state violence, it is clear that those involved are well aware that

2361

capitalist class will not just watch its power disappear.

2362

2363

Also, calling RTS's action "idealist philosophy" is quite ironic for

2364

someone who seems intent in ignoring the history of Social Democracy

2365

and dismisses attempts to analyse the Bolsheviks in power as "bourgeois

2366

slanders." However, Mitchinson in his diatribe forgets one of the basic

2367

arguments of materialism -- namely that ideas themselves are part of

2368

the material world and so influence society and how it develops. He

2369

rejects the notion that peoples thoughts and ideas determine their

2370

actions. He obviously thinks that people operate on auto-pilot, not

2371

thinking about their actions. However, in reality, what people do is

2372

dependent on their thoughts -- they think about their actions and what

2373

motivates them influences their activity. If thoughts did not determine

2374

people's actions then Mitchinson would not have spent so much time

2375

writing this article!

2376

2377

Thus Mitchinson is well aware of the importance of ideas in social

2378

change, at least implicitly. Indeed, he argues for the need for a "mass

2379

Labour youth organisation which, fighting for a socialist programme,

2380

could attract these young workers and students." To state the obvious,

2381

a socialist programme is a means to "change people's minds" and present

2382

the possibility of creating a new society. Does he seriously think a

2383

socialist revolution is possible without changing people's minds,

2384

getting them to desire a socialist society?

2385

2386

Moreover, if he had read Bakunin he would be aware that anarchists

2387

consider the class struggle as the way to change people's ideas. As

2388

Bakunin argued:

2389

2390

"the germs of [socialist thought] . . . [are to] be found in the

2391

instinct of every earnest worker. The goal . . . is to make the

2392

worker fully aware of what he wants, to unjam within him a stream of

2393

thought corresponding to his instinct . . . What impedes the swifter

2394

development of this salutary though among the working masses? Their

2395

ignorance to be sure, that is, for the most part the political and

2396

religious prejudices with which self-interested classes still try to

2397

obscure their conscious and their natural instinct. How can we

2398

dispel this ignorance and destroy these harmful prejudices? By

2399

education and propaganda? . . . they are insufficient . . . [and]

2400

who will conduct this propaganda? . . . [The] workers' world . . .

2401

is left with but a single path, that of emancipation through

2402

practical action . . . It means workers' solidarity in their

2403

struggle against the bosses. It means trade-unions, organisation . .

2404

. To deliver [the worker] from that ignorance [of reactionary

2405

ideas], the International relies on collective experience he gains

2406

in its bosom, especially on the progress of the collective struggle

2407

of the workers against the bosses . . . As soon as he begins to take

2408

an active part in this wholly material struggle, . . . Socialism

2409

replaces religion in his mind. . . through practice and collective

2410

experience . . . the progressive and development of the economic

2411

struggle will bring him more and more to recognise his true enemies

2412

. . . The workers thus enlisted in the struggle will necessarily . .

2413

. recognise himself to be a revolutionary socialist, and he will act

2414

as one." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 102-3]

2415

2416

Thus anarchists are aware that experience determines thought but we are

2417

also aware that thought is essential for action. We recognise the

2418

importance of ideas in the class struggle but we also realise that the

2419

ideas people have change as a result of that struggle. To state

2420

otherwise is to misrepresent anarchist thought.

2421

2422

21. How is Mitchinson's critique self-contradictory?

2423

2424

He continues his distortion:

2425

2426

"Whilst believing in a revolutionary struggle to overthrow

2427

capitalism, anarchists argue that it must be replaced by...nothing."

2428

2429

This is ironic for quite a few reasons. Firstly, above Mitchinson

2430

claimed that anarchists did not aim to overthrow capitalism, just the

2431

state. Now he is claiming we do believe in overthrowing capitalism.

2432

Secondly, he quoted Trotsky saying that anarchists just ignore the

2433

state. Now Mitchinson states we aim to overthrow the capitalism via

2434

revolutionary struggle. How do you overthrow something via

2435

revolutionary struggle by ignoring it? His critique is not even

2436

internally consistent.

2437

2438

Moreover, he is well aware what anarchists want to replace capitalism

2439

with, after all he quotes an anarchist conference which stated that

2440

they aimed for "the creation of an absolutely free economic

2441

organisation and federation based on work and equality"! Bakunin was

2442

always arguing that the International Workers Association should become

2443

"an earnest organisation of workers associations from all countries,

2444

capable of replacing this departing world of States and bourgeoisie."

2445

[The Basic Bakunin, p. 110] In other words, the "future social

2446

organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free

2447

association of workers, first in their unions, then in the communes,

2448

regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and

2449

universal." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206] Even Engels

2450

acknowledged that the anarchists aimed to "dispose all the authorities,

2451

abolish the state and replace it with the organisation of the

2452

International." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 72] Anyone with

2453

even a basic knowledge of anarchist theory would know this. And given

2454

that Mitchinson stated that "Marx saw a future society without a state"

2455

as well and that he quotes Trotsky as arguing "Marxists are wholly in

2456

agreement with the anarchists in regard to the final goal: the

2457

liquidation of the state" we can only assume that Marxists also aim at

2458

replacing it, eventually, when the state "withers away," with

2459

"nothing."

2460

2461

This sentence, more than any other, shows the level which some Marxists

2462

will sink to when discussing anarchism. It shows that the standard

2463

Marxist critique of anarchism is little more than an inconsistent

2464

collection of lies, distortion and misrepresentation. Mitchinson not

2465

only contradicts his ideological gurus, he even contradicts himself!

2466

That is truly impressive.

2467

2468

22. How did Trotsky make the trains run on time?

2469

2470

Mitchinson asks:

2471

2472

"Yet with no central apparatus, no organisation, how would the

2473

trains run on time, how could organ transplants be organised, how

2474

could the world's resources be channelled into permanently

2475

overcoming famine."

2476

2477

Firstly, we must note the usual fallacy -- being opposed to a "central

2478

apparatus" does not imply "no organisation." Instead of centralised

2479

organisation, anarchists propose federal organisations in which

2480

co-ordination is achieved by collective decision making from the bottom

2481

up. In other words, rather than delegate power into the hands of

2482

"leaders", an anarchist organisation leaves power at the bottom and

2483

co-ordination results from collective agreements that reflect the needs

2484

of those directly affected by them. Thus a federal organisation

2485

co-ordinates activities but in a bottom-up fashion rather than

2486

top-down, as in a centralised body.

2487

2488

Secondly, needless to say, anarchists are quite clear on who would make

2489

the trains run on time -- the railway workers. Anarchists are firm

2490

supporters of workers' self-management. Anyone with even a basic

2491

understanding of anarchist theory would know that. Moreover, the

2492

experience of workers' self-management of the railways by the anarchist

2493

union the CNT during the Spanish Revolution indicates that such

2494

anarchism can, and does, ensure that the trains run on time In

2495

contrast, the experience of Russia -- when the Bolsheviks did create a

2496

"central apparatus" -- proved a total failure. It is quite appropriate

2497

that Mitchinson uses the "trains running on time" example, after all it

2498

is what apologists for Italian fascism praised Mussolini for! This is

2499

because Trotsky (when he ran the railways) did so in a way that

2500

Mussolini would have been proud of -- he subjected the railway workers

2501

to military discipline:

2502

2503

"Due to the Civil War -- and to other factors less often mentioned,

2504

such as the attitude of the railway workers to the 'new' regime --

2505

the Russian railways had virtually ceased to function. Trotsky,

2506

Commissar for Transport, was granted wide emergency powers [in

2507

August 1920] to try out his theories of 'militarisation of labour.'

2508

He started out placing the railwaymen and the personnel of the

2509

repair workshops under martial law. When the railwaymen's trade

2510

union objected, he summarily ousted its leaders and, with the full

2511

support and endorsement of the Party leadership, 'appointed others

2512

willing to do his bidding. He repeated the procedure in other unions

2513

of transport workers.'" [Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and

2514

Workers' Control, p. 67]

2515

2516

He ruled the "central apparatus" he created, called the Tsektran,

2517

"along strict military and bureaucratic lines." [Ibid.] The trains did

2518

start moving again, of course. The question is -- do workers manage

2519

their own activity or does some other group. Trotsky and Lenin in power

2520

decided for the latter -- and built the "centralised apparatus"

2521

required to ensure that result. Needless to say, Trotsky did not

2522

justify his militarisation of work in terms of necessary evils

2523

resulting from appalling objective conditions. Rather he saw it as a

2524

matter of "principle":

2525

2526

"The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They

2527

must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like

2528

soldiers."

2529

2530

"The very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist quite

2531

unquestionable . . . the only solution to economic difficulties from

2532

the point of view of both principle and of practice is to treat the

2533

population of the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary

2534

labour power . . . and to introduce strict order into the work of

2535

its registration, mobilisation and utilisation."

2536

2537

"The introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable

2538

without the application . . . of the methods of militarisation of

2539

labour."

2540

[quoted by M. Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 61 and p. 66]

2541

2542

Why "principle"? Perhaps because Marx and Engels had stated in The

2543

Communist Manifesto that one of the measures required during the

2544

revolution was the "[e]stablishment of industrial armies"? [Selected

2545

Writings, p. 53]

2546

2547

Moreover, the experience of "central apparatus" in Bolshevik Russia

2548

helped create famine -- the vast bureaucracy spawned by the "workers'

2549

state" could not handle the information a centralised distribution

2550

system required. Food rotted in trains waiting for bureaucrats to

2551

"channel" resources (and, needless to say, the bureaucrats never went

2552

hungry).

2553

2554

23. Can centralised planning meet the needs of the whole of society?

2555

2556

Our Marxist friend then quotes Maybe:

2557

2558

"The radical social movements that are increasingly coming together

2559

don't want to seize power but to dissolve it. They are dreaming up

2560

many autonomous alternative forms of social organisation, forms that

2561

are directly linked to the specific needs of locality. What might be

2562

an alternative to capitalism for people living currently in a

2563

housing estate in Croydon is completely different to what might be

2564

suitable for the inhabitants of the slums of Delhi."

2565

2566

He comments on these very sensible words:

2567

2568

"It cannot be of no concern to us what form a new society will take

2569

in different countries or even different regions. The economic power

2570

we have created over centuries can and must be used in a planned,

2571

rational way to eradicate hunger, disease and illiteracy. It must be

2572

used in the interests of the whole of society."

2573

2574

Obviously, the needs of actual people, what sort of society they want,

2575

is irrelevant to Marxism. Also ignored is the fact that different

2576

cultures will have different visions of what a free society will be

2577

like. Thus, for Mitchinson, everyone, everywhere, will be subject to

2578

the same form of society -- "in the interests of society." However, as

2579

Bakunin argued, the state "is an arbitrary creature in whose breast all

2580

the positive, living, individual or local interests of the people

2581

clash, destroy and absorb each other into the abstraction known as the

2582

common interest, the public good or the public welfare, and where all

2583

real wills are dissolved into the other abstraction that bears the name

2584

of the will of the people. It follows that this alleged will of the

2585

people is never anything but the sacrifice and dissolution of all the

2586

real wants of the population, just as this so-called public good is

2587

nothing but the sacrifice of their interests." [Michael Bakunin:

2588

Selected Writings, pp. 265-6]

2589

2590

The different needs of different areas and regions must be the starting

2591

point of any social reconstruction, the basis on which we create

2592

specific programmes to improve our societies, eco-systems and world. If

2593

we do not recognise the diversity inherent in a world of billions of

2594

people, millions of eco-systems, thousands of cultures, hundreds of

2595

regions then we cannot use the resources of society to improve our

2596

lives. Instead we would have uniform plan imposed on everything which,

2597

by its very nature, cannot take into accounts the real needs of those

2598

who make up "the whole of society." In other words, the resources of

2599

the world must not be used by an abstraction claiming to act "in the

2600

interests of society" but rather by the people who actually make up

2601

society themselves -- if we do that we ensure that their interests are

2602

meet directly as they manage their own affairs and that their use

2603

reflects the specific requirements of specific people and eco-systems

2604

and not some abstraction called "the interests of society" which, by

2605

its centralised nature, would sacrifice those interests.

2606

2607

Of course, it seems somewhat strange that Mitchinson thinks that people

2608

in, say, New Delhi or Croyden, will not seek to eradicate hunger,

2609

disease and illiteracy as they see fit, co-operating with others as and

2610

when they need to and creating the federative organisations required to

2611

do so. The need to share experiences and resources does not conflict

2612

with the different areas experimenting in different ways, expressing

2613

themselves in ways which suit their particular needs and difficulties.

2614

As any ecologist could tell you, different eco-systems need different

2615

forms of care. The same with communities -- Mitchinson would drown

2616

local needs in the name of an artificial construct.

2617

2618

He continues:

2619

2620

"That can only be achieved by the democratic planning of society

2621

where the power at our fingertips could be used with due respect for

2622

the future of the planet, the conservation of it's resources, our

2623

own working conditions, and living standards. Whether we like it or

2624

not, growing a few carrots on empty plots of land will not eradicate

2625

hunger and famine."

2626

2627

How can "democratic planning" of the whole "of society" take into

2628

account the needs of specific localities, eco-systems, communities? It

2629

cannot. Respect for the future of our planet means respecting the

2630

fundamental law of nature -- namely that conformity is death. Diversity

2631

is the law of life -- which means that a future socialist society must

2632

be libertarian, organised from the bottom up, based on local

2633

self-management and a respect for diversity. Such a federal structures

2634

does not preclude co-ordinated activity (or the creation of democratic

2635

plans) -- the reverse in fact, as federalism exists to allow

2636

co-ordination -- but instead of being imposed by a few "leaders" as in

2637

a centralised system, it is the product of local needs and so

2638

reflective of the needs of real people and eco-systems.

2639

2640

As for his comment about "due respect of the future of the planet" is

2641

obviously inspired by "the youth" being concerned about ecological

2642

issues. However, Leninism's desire for centralised states and planning

2643

excludes an ecological perspective by definition. As Bakunin argued:

2644

2645

"What man, what group of individuals, no matter how great their

2646

genius, would dare to think themselves able to embrace and

2647

understand the plethora of interests, attitudes and activities so

2648

various in every country, every province, locality and profession."

2649

[Op. Cit., p. 240]

2650

2651

Diversity is the basis of any eco-system. Centralism cannot, as Bakunin

2652

makes clear, embrace it.

2653

2654

Needless to say, Mitchinson's comments about carrots is pure stupidity

2655

and an insult to the intelligence of his audience.

2656

2657

24. Is technology neutral?

2658

2659

Mitchinson goes on:

2660

2661

"We have the power to do just that, but only if we combine new

2662

technology, industry and the talents and active participation of

2663

millions."

2664

2665

Needless to say, he fails to indicate how the millions can participate

2666

in a "centralised apparatus" beyond electing their "leaders." Which

2667

indicates the fallacy of Marxism -- it claims to desire a society based

2668

on the participation of everyone yet favours a form of organisation --

2669

centralisation -- that precludes that participation.

2670

2671

In addition, he fails to note that technology and industry have been

2672

developed by capitalists to enhance their own power. As we argued in

2673

[9]section D.10, technology cannot be viewed in isolation from the

2674

class struggle. This means that industry and technology was not

2675

developed to allow the active participation of millions. The first act

2676

of any revolution will be seizing of the means of life -- including

2677

industry and technology -- by those who use it and, from that moment

2678

on, their radical transformation into appropriate technology and

2679

industry, based on the needs of the workers, the community and the

2680

planet. Mitchinson obvious shares the common Marxist failing of

2681

believing technology and industry is neutral. In this he follows Lenin.

2682

As S.A. Smith correctly summarises:

2683

2684

"Lenin believed that socialism could be built only on the basis of

2685

large-scale industry as developed by capitalism, with its specific

2686

types of productivity and social organisation of labour. Thus for

2687

him, capitalist methods of labour-discipline or one-man management

2688

were not necessarily incompatible with socialism. Indeed, he went so

2689

far as to consider them to be inherently progressive, failing to

2690

recognise that such methods undermined workers' initiative at the

2691

point of production. This was because Lenin believed that the

2692

transition to socialism was guaranteed, ultimately, not by the

2693

self-activity of workers, but by the 'proletarian' character of

2694

state power. . . There is no doubt that Lenin did conceive

2695

proletarian power in terms of the central state and lacked a

2696

conception of localising such power at the point of production."

2697

[Red Petrograd, pp. 261-2]

2698

2699

The Russian workers, unsurprisingly, had a different perspective:

2700

2701

"Implicit in the movement for workers' control was a belief that

2702

capitalist methods cannot be used for socialist ends. In their

2703

battle to democratise the factory, in their emphasis on the

2704

importance of collective initiatives by the direct producers in

2705

transforming the work situation, the factory committees had become

2706

aware -- in a partial and groping way, to be sure -- that factories

2707

are not merely sites of production, but also of reproduction -- the

2708

reproduction of a certain structure of social relations based on the

2709

division between those who give orders and those who take them,

2710

between those who direct and those who execute . . . inscribed

2711

within their practice was a distinctive vision of socialism, central

2712

to which was workplace democracy." [Op. Cit., p. 261]

2713

2714

The movement for workers' control was undermined and finally replaced

2715

by one-man management by the kind of "central apparatus" Mitchinson

2716

urges us to build (see M. Brinton's classic work The Bolsheviks and

2717

Workers' Control for more details). Those who do not study history are

2718

doomed to repeat it.

2719

2720

He goes on:

2721

2722

"The economic power we have created can be compared to the

2723

destructive force of lightning, untamed and anarchic under the

2724

market, yet organised into cables and wires electricity transforms

2725

our lives. Industry is not the enemy, nor are machines. The state

2726

is, but it is a symptom not the disease. It is capitalism and its

2727

ownership of the economy, its stewardship of society that we have to

2728

replace."

2729

2730

However, unlike electricity, "economic power" requires people to

2731

operate it. The question is not whether "machines" are the enemy (often

2732

they are, as machines are used by capitalists to weaken the power of

2733

workers and control them). The question is whether the future society

2734

we aim at is one based on workers' and community self-management or

2735

whether it is based on an authoritarian system of delegated power. It

2736

is clear that Marxists like Mitchinson desire the latter -- indeed, as

2737

is clear from his diatribe, he cannot comprehend an alternative to

2738

hierarchical organisation.

2739

2740

Given that one of the things capitalism and the state have in common is

2741

a hierarchical, top-down structure, it is clear that any revolutionary

2742

movement must fight both -- at the same time.

2743

2744

25. Do anarchists ignore the "strength of the working class"?

2745

2746

Mitchinson argues that:

2747

2748

"The task of our time is to combine the strength and experience of

2749

the working class and its mighty organisations with the power and

2750

energy of the youth internationally, on the basis of a clear

2751

understanding of what capitalism is, what the state is, and a

2752

programme for changing society. That requires a combination of

2753

theory and action. In that combination lies the strength of

2754

Marxism."

2755

2756

The first question is surely what "mighty organisations" of the working

2757

class is he talking about. Is it the Labour Party? Or is it the trade

2758

unions? Probably the latter -- if so, the question is how effective

2759

have these "mighty organisations" been recently? The answer must,

2760

surely, be "not very." Why is that? In union there is strength, as

2761

anarchists have long been aware. Why has this strength been so lacking?

2762

Simply because the unions are centralised, bureaucratic and run from

2763

the top down. They have placed numerous barriers in front of their

2764

members when they have taken militant action. That is why anarchists

2765

urge workers to form rank-and-file controlled organisations to manage

2766

their own struggles and take back the power they have delegated to

2767

their so-called leaders. Only in this way, by building truly

2768

revolutionary organisations like workers' councils (soviets), factory

2769

committees, community assemblies and so on can they really create a

2770

"mighty" force. In other words, anarchists are well aware of the

2771

strength of working class people and their power to change society --

2772

indeed, as proven above, anarchism is based on that awareness and

2773

organise appropriately!

2774

2775

The second question is surely to ask whether Mitchinson is aware that

2776

Reclaim the Streets have been building links with rank and file trade

2777

union militants for years -- long before Mitchinson decided to

2778

enlighten them with "the strength of Marxism." In other words, "the

2779

strength of Marxism" seems to rest in telling radical working class

2780

people to do what they have already doing! Such strength is truly

2781

amazing and must explain the prominent role Leninists have had in the

2782

numerous anti-capitalist demonstrations and organisations recently.

2783

2784

Needless to say, anarchism provides "a clear understanding of what

2785

capitalism is, what the state is, and a programme for changing society.

2786

That requires a combination of theory and action." This has been proven

2787

above when we corrected Mitchinson's numerous errors regarding

2788

anarchist theory. Moreover, as far as combining theory and action goes,

2789

it is clear that anarchism has been doing that of late, not Marxism.

2790

While anarchists have been at the forefront of the anti-capitalist

2791

demonstrations, working with others as equals, Marxists have been

2792

noticeable by their absence. Combining theory and practice,

2793

non-hierarchically organised direct action closed down the WTO and

2794

presented a clear message to the oppressed around the world --

2795

resistance is fertile. What have Marxists achieved? Apparently

2796

producing articles such as these, distorting the politics and

2797

activities of those who actually are changing the world rather than

2798

just interpreting it. That they cannot produce an honest critique of

2799

anarchism indicates the uselessness of their politics.

2800

2801

26. What does Mitchinson's article tell about the nature of Trotskyism?

2802

2803

He finishes his diatribe as follows:

2804

2805

"If you want to fight against capitalism, do so fully armed with a

2806

socialist programme and perspective. Join with us in the struggle

2807

for the socialist transformation of the planet."

2808

2809

It is clear that to be "fully armed with a socialist programme" means

2810

to critique that which you know nothing about, spread slanders and lie

2811

about what your opponents actually think. There is much to be critical

2812

of in the recent anti-capitalist demonstrations and the various groups

2813

that have helped organise and take part in them. Anarchists have been

2814

the first to point these out. However, we have a lot to learn from them

2815

as well -- they are struggling against capitalism and, as Kropotkin

2816

argues, "Anarchism . . . originated in everyday struggles" and "the

2817

Anarchist movement was renewed each time it received an impression from

2818

some great practical lesson: it derived its origin from the teachings

2819

of life itself." [Evolution and Environment, p. 58 and p. 57]

2820

2821

Thus we must critique these movements honestly and as equals --

2822

Mitchinson, as can be seen, does neither. He slanders those involved

2823

and dismisses out of hand their experiences and the reasons that have

2824

brought them to struggle in a specific way against the dominant

2825

society. In this he follows Lenin, who argued in Left-Wing Communism:

2826

An Infantile Disorder that western revolutionaries ignore their own

2827

experiences in their own -- and similar -- countries and instead follow

2828

the "lessons" of experiences gained in a near pre-capitalist,

2829

absolutist state. The stupidity of such an approach is clear.

2830

2831

Mitchinson presents those in struggle with the ultimatum "subscribe to

2832

our platform or be denounced." Little wonder that Leninists are

2833

non-existent in the groups that have taken part and organised the

2834

anti-capitalist demonstrations -- not willing to learn from those

2835

involved in the class struggle, all they can do is act as petty

2836

sectarians. Sectarians expect working class people to relate to their

2837

predetermined political positions, whereas revolutionaries apply our

2838

politics to the conditions we face as members of the working class. For

2839

Leninists revolutionary consciousness is not generated by working class

2840

self-activity, but is embodied in the party. The important issues

2841

facing the working class -- and how to fight -- are to be determined

2842

not by the workers ourselves, but by the leadership of the party, who

2843

are the "vanguard of the working class". Hence Mitchinson's dismissal

2844

(in a particularly dishonest manner, we must stress) of those involved

2845

in struggle and their experiences. True "revolution" obviously lies in

2846

the unchanging ideas generated at the start of the twentieth century in

2847

a monarchy developing towards capitalism, not in the experiences and

2848

desires of living people fighting for freedom in the here and now. Yes,

2849

these ideas and movements can be confused and unclear -- but they are

2850

living and subject to change by the influence of revolutionaries who

2851

act in a libertarian manner (i.e. as equals, willing to learn as well

2852

as teach).

2853

2854

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci once wrote that "to tell the truth

2855

is a communist and revolutionary act." However, even he did not apply

2856

this when discussing anarchism and the activities of anarchists (see

2857

Gwyn Williams' Proletarian Order, pp. 193-4). Be that as it may,

2858

Gramsci's point is correct. Telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

2859

If we judge Mitchinson's article by this standard then we can only

2860

conclude that neither he nor the politics he defends are revolutionary

2861

or communist.

2862

2863

Thus we find his ending comment truly a "flight of fancy" -- after

2864

reading our comments above, we hope you agree with us. If you seek a

2865

true socialist transformation of this planet rather than its

2866

degeneration into centralised state capitalism, discover more about

2867

anarchism.

2868

2869

References

2870

2871

1. http://www.marxist.com/Theory/direct_action.html

2872

2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36

2873

3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca29

2874

4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html

2875

5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append3.html#app31

2876

6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append41.html

2877

7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append46.html

2878

8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append46.html#app9

2879

9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD10.html