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

1

A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"?

2

3

Anarchism, more than anything else, is about the efforts of millions of

4

revolutionaries changing the world in the last two centuries. Here we

5

will discuss some of the high points of this movement, all of them of a

6

profoundly anti-capitalist nature.

7

8

Anarchism is about radically changing the world, not just making the

9

present system less inhuman by encouraging the anarchistic tendencies

10

within it to grow and develop. While no purely anarchist revolution has

11

taken place yet, there have been numerous ones with a highly anarchist

12

character and level of participation. And while these have all been

13

destroyed, in each case it has been at the hands of outside force

14

brought against them (backed either by Communists or Capitalists), not

15

because of any internal problems in anarchism itself. These

16

revolutions, despite their failure to survive in the face of

17

overwhelming force, have been both an inspiration for anarchists and

18

proof that anarchism is a viable social theory and can be practised on

19

a large scale.

20

21

What these revolutions share is the fact they are, to use Proudhon's

22

term, a "revolution from below" -- they were examples of "collective

23

activity, of popular spontaneity." It is only a transformation of

24

society from the bottom up by the action of the oppressed themselves

25

that can create a free society. As Proudhon asked, "[w]hat serious and

26

lasting Revolution was not made from below, by the people?" For this

27

reason an anarchist is a "revolutionary from below." Thus the social

28

revolutions and mass movements we discuss in this section are examples

29

of popular self-activity and self-liberation (as Proudhon put it in

30

1848, "the proletariat must emancipate itself"). [quoted by George

31

Woodcock, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography, p. 143 and p. 125] All

32

anarchists echo Proudhon's idea of revolutionary change from below, the

33

creation of a new society by the actions of the oppressed themselves.

34

Bakunin, for example, argued that anarchists are "foes . . . of all

35

State organisations as such, and believe that the people can only be

36

happy and free, when, organised from below by means of its own

37

autonomous and completely free associations, without the supervision of

38

any guardians, it will create its own life." [Marxism, Freedom and the

39

State, p. 63] In [1]section J.7 we discuss what anarchists think a

40

social revolution is and what it involves.

41

42

Many of these revolutions and revolutionary movements are relatively

43

unknown to non-anarchists. Most people will have heard of the Russian

44

revolution but few will know of the popular movements which were its

45

life-blood before the Bolsheviks seized power or the role that the

46

anarchists played in it. Few will have heard of the Paris Commune, the

47

Italian factory occupations or the Spanish collectives. This is

48

unsurprising for, as Hebert Read notes, history "is of two kinds -- a

49

record of events that take place publicly, that make the headlines in

50

the newspapers and get embodied in official records -- we might call

51

this overground history" but "taking place at the same time, preparing

52

for these public events, anticipating them, is another kind of history,

53

that is not embodied in official records, an invisible underground

54

history." [quoted by William R. McKercher, Freedom and Authority, p.

55

155] Almost by definition, popular movements and revolts are part of

56

"underground history", the social history which gets ignored in favour

57

of elite history, the accounts of the kings, queens, politicians and

58

wealthy whose fame is the product of the crushing of the many.

59

60

This means our examples of "anarchy in action" are part of what the

61

Russian anarchist Voline called "The Unknown Revolution." Voline used

62

that expression as the title of his classic account of the Russian

63

revolution he was an active participant of. He used it to refer to the

64

rarely acknowledged independent, creative actions of the people

65

themselves. As Voline put it, "it is not known how to study a

66

revolution" and most historians "mistrust and ignore those developments

67

which occur silently in the depths of the revolution . . . at best,

68

they accord them a few words in passing . . . [Yet] it is precisely

69

these hidden facts which are important, and which throw a true light on

70

the events under consideration and on the period." [The Unknown

71

Revolution, p. 19] Anarchism, based as it is on revolution from below,

72

has contributed considerably to both the "underground history" and the

73

"unknown revolution" of the past few centuries and this section of the

74

FAQ will shed some light on its achievements.

75

76

It is important to point out that these examples are of wide-scale

77

social experiments and do not imply that we ignore the undercurrent of

78

anarchist practice which exists in everyday life, even under

79

capitalism. Both Peter Kropotkin (in Mutual Aid) and Colin Ward (in

80

Anarchy in Action) have documented the many ways in which ordinary

81

people, usually unaware of anarchism, have worked together as equals to

82

meet their common interests. As Colin Ward argues, "an anarchist

83

society, a society which organises itself without authority, is always

84

in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried under the weight of

85

the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and

86

its injustices, nationalism and its suicidal loyalties, religious

87

differences and their superstitious separatism." [Anarchy in Action, p.

88

14]

89

90

Anarchism is not only about a future society, it is also about the

91

social struggle happening today. It is not a condition but a process,

92

which we create by our self-activity and self-liberation.

93

94

By the 1960's, however, many commentators were writing off the

95

anarchist movement as a thing of the past. Not only had fascism

96

finished off European anarchist movements in the years before and

97

during the war, but in the post-war period these movements were

98

prevented from recovering by the capitalist West on one hand and the

99

Leninist East on the other. Over the same period of time, anarchism had

100

been repressed in the US, Latin America, China, Korea (where a social

101

revolution with anarchist content was put down before the Korean War),

102

and Japan. Even in the one or two countries that escaped the worst of

103

the repression, the combination of the Cold War and international

104

isolation saw libertarian unions like the Swedish SAC become reformist.

105

106

But the 60's were a decade of new struggle, and all over the world the

107

'New Left' looked to anarchism as well as elsewhere for its ideas. Many

108

of the prominent figures of the massive explosion of May 1968 in France

109

considered themselves anarchists. Although these movements themselves

110

degenerated, those coming out of them kept the idea alive and began to

111

construct new movements. The death of Franco in 1975 saw a massive

112

rebirth of anarchism in Spain, with up to 500,000 people attending the

113

CNT's first post-Franco rally. The return to a limited democracy in

114

some South American countries in the late 70's and 80's saw a growth in

115

anarchism there. Finally, in the late 80's it was anarchists who struck

116

the first blows against the Leninist USSR, with the first protest march

117

since 1928 being held in Moscow by anarchists in 1987.

118

119

Today the anarchist movement, although still weak, organises tens of

120

thousands of revolutionaries in many countries. Spain, Sweden and Italy

121

all have libertarian union movements organising some 250,000 between

122

them. Most other European countries have several thousand active

123

anarchists. Anarchist groups have appeared for the first time in other

124

countries, including Nigeria and Turkey. In South America the movement

125

has recovered massively. A contact sheet circulated by the Venezuelan

126

anarchist group Corrio A lists over 100 organisations in just about

127

every country.

128

129

Perhaps the recovery is slowest in North America, but there, too, all

130

the libertarian organisations seem to be undergoing significant growth.

131

As this growth accelerates, many more examples of anarchy in action

132

will be created and more and more people will take part in anarchist

133

organisations and activities, making this part of the FAQ less and less

134

important.

135

136

However, it is essential to highlight mass examples of anarchism

137

working on a large scale in order to avoid the specious accusation of

138

"utopianism." As history is written by the winners, these examples of

139

anarchy in action are often hidden from view in obscure books. Rarely

140

are they mentioned in the schools and universities (or if mentioned,

141

they are distorted). Needless to say, the few examples we give are just

142

that, a few.

143

144

Anarchism has a long history in many countries, and we cannot attempt

145

to document every example, just those we consider to be important. We

146

are also sorry if the examples seem Eurocentric. We have, due to space

147

and time considerations, had to ignore the syndicalist revolt (1910 to

148

1914) and the shop steward movement (1917-21) in Britain, Germany

149

(1919-21), Portugal (1974), the Mexican revolution, anarchists in the

150

Cuban revolution, the struggle in Korea against Japanese (then US and

151

Russian) imperialism during and after the Second World War, Hungary

152

(1956), the "the refusal of work" revolt in the late 1960's

153

(particularly in "the hot Autumn" in Italy, 1969), the UK miner's

154

strike (1984-85), the struggle against the Poll Tax in Britain

155

(1988-92), the strikes in France in 1986 and 1995, the Italian COBAS

156

movement in the 80's and 90's, the popular assemblies and self-managed

157

occupied workplaces during the Argentine revolt at the start of the

158

21st century and numerous other major struggles that have involved

159

anarchist ideas of self-management (ideas that usually develop from the

160

movement themselves, without anarchists necessarily playing a major, or

161

"leading", role).

162

163

For anarchists, revolutions and mass struggles are "festivals of the

164

oppressed," when ordinary people start to act for themselves and change

165

both themselves and the world.

166

167

A.5.1 The Paris Commune

168

169

The Paris Commune of 1871 played an important role in the development

170

of both anarchist ideas and the movement. As Bakunin commented at the

171

time,

172

173

"revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism] has just attempted its

174

first striking and practical demonstration in the Paris Commune . .

175

. [It] show[ed] to all enslaved peoples (and are there any masses

176

that are not slaves?) the only road to emancipation and health;

177

Paris inflict[ed] a mortal blow upon the political traditions of

178

bourgeois radicalism and [gave] a real basis to revolutionary

179

socialism." [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 263-4]

180

181

The Paris Commune was created after France was defeated by Prussia in

182

the Franco-Prussian war. The French government tried to send in troops

183

to regain the Parisian National Guard's cannon to prevent it from

184

falling into the hands of the population. "Learning that the Versailles

185

soldiers were trying to seize the cannon," recounted participant Louise

186

Michel, "men and women of Montmartre swarmed up the Butte in surprise

187

manoeuvre. Those people who were climbing up the Butte believed they

188

would die, but they were prepared to pay the price." The soldiers

189

refused to fire on the jeering crowd and turned their weapons on their

190

officers. This was March 18th; the Commune had begun and "the people

191

wakened . . . The eighteenth of March could have belonged to the allies

192

of kings, or to foreigners, or to the people. It was the people's."

193

[Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel, p. 64]

194

195

In the free elections called by the Parisian National Guard, the

196

citizens of Paris elected a council made up of a majority of Jacobins

197

and Republicans and a minority of socialists (mostly Blanquists --

198

authoritarian socialists -- and followers of the anarchist Proudhon).

199

This council proclaimed Paris autonomous and desired to recreate France

200

as a confederation of communes (i.e. communities). Within the Commune,

201

the elected council people were recallable and paid an average wage. In

202

addition, they had to report back to the people who had elected them

203

and were subject to recall by electors if they did not carry out their

204

mandates.

205

206

Why this development caught the imagination of anarchists is clear --

207

it has strong similarities with anarchist ideas. In fact, the example

208

of the Paris Commune was in many ways similar to how Bakunin had

209

predicted that a revolution would have to occur -- a major city

210

declaring itself autonomous, organising itself, leading by example, and

211

urging the rest of the planet to follow it. (See "Letter to Albert

212

Richards" in Bakunin on Anarchism). The Paris Commune began the process

213

of creating a new society, one organised from the bottom up. It was "a

214

blow for the decentralisation of political power." [Voltairine de

215

Cleyre, "The Paris Commune," Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's

216

Mother Earth, p. 67]

217

218

Many anarchists played a role within the Commune -- for example Louise

219

Michel, the Reclus brothers, and Eugene Varlin (the latter murdered in

220

the repression afterwards). As for the reforms initiated by the

221

Commune, such as the re-opening of workplaces as co-operatives,

222

anarchists can see their ideas of associated labour beginning to be

223

realised. By May, 43 workplaces were co-operatively run and the Louvre

224

Museum was a munitions factory run by a workers' council. Echoing

225

Proudhon, a meeting of the Mechanics Union and the Association of Metal

226

Workers argued that "our economic emancipation . . . can only be

227

obtained through the formation of workers' associations, which alone

228

can transform our position from that of wage earners to that of

229

associates." They instructed their delegates to the Commune's

230

Commission on Labour Organisation to support the following objectives:

231

232

"The abolition of the exploitation of man by man, the last vestige

233

of slavery;

234

235

"The organisation of labour in mutual associations and inalienable

236

capital."

237

238

In this way, they hoped to ensure that "equality must not be an empty

239

word" in the Commune. [The Paris Commune of 1871: The View from the

240

Left, Eugene Schulkind (ed.), p. 164] The Engineers Union voted at a

241

meeting on 23rd of April that since the aim of the Commune should be

242

"economic emancipation" it should "organise labour through associations

243

in which there would be joint responsibility" in order "to suppress the

244

exploitation of man by man." [quoted by Stewart Edwards, The Paris

245

Commune 1871, pp. 263-4]

246

247

As well as self-managed workers' associations, the Communards practised

248

direct democracy in a network popular clubs, popular organisations

249

similar to the directly democratic neighbourhood assemblies

250

("sections") of the French Revolution. "People, govern yourselves

251

through your public meetings, through your press" proclaimed the

252

newspaper of one Club. The commune was seen as an expression of the

253

assembled people, for (to quote another Club) "Communal power resides

254

in each arrondissement [neighbourhood] wherever men are assembled who

255

have a horror of the yoke and of servitude." Little wonder that Gustave

256

Courbet, artist friend and follower of Proudhon, proclaimed Paris as "a

257

true paradise . . . all social groups have established themselves as

258

federations and are masters of their own fate." [quoted by Martin

259

Phillip Johnson, The Paradise of Association, p. 5 and p. 6]

260

261

In addition the Commune's "Declaration to the French People" which

262

echoed many key anarchist ideas. It saw the "political unity" of

263

society as being based on "the voluntary association of all local

264

initiatives, the free and spontaneous concourse of all individual

265

energies for the common aim, the well-being, the liberty and the

266

security of all." [quoted by Edwards, Op. Cit., p. 218] The new society

267

envisioned by the communards was one based on the "absolute autonomy of

268

the Commune . . . assuring to each its integral rights and to each

269

Frenchman the full exercise of his aptitudes, as a man, a citizen and a

270

labourer. The autonomy of the Commune will have for its limits only the

271

equal autonomy of all other communes adhering to the contract; their

272

association must ensure the liberty of France." ["Declaration to the

273

French People", quoted by George Woodcock, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A

274

Biography, pp. 276-7] With its vision of a confederation of communes,

275

Bakunin was correct to assert that the Paris Commune was "a bold,

276

clearly formulated negation of the State." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p.

277

264]

278

279

Moreover, the Commune's ideas on federation obviously reflected the

280

influence of Proudhon on French radical ideas. Indeed, the Commune's

281

vision of a communal France based on a federation of delegates bound by

282

imperative mandates issued by their electors and subject to recall at

283

any moment echoes Proudhon's ideas (Proudhon had argued in favour of

284

the "implementation of the binding mandate" in 1848 [No Gods, No

285

Masters, p. 63] and for federation of communes in his work The

286

Principle of Federation).

287

288

Thus both economically and politically the Paris Commune was heavily

289

influenced by anarchist ideas. Economically, the theory of associated

290

production expounded by Proudhon and Bakunin became consciously

291

revolutionary practice. Politically, in the Commune's call for

292

federalism and autonomy, anarchists see their "future social

293

organisation. . . [being] carried out from the bottom up, by the free

294

association or federation of workers, starting with associations, then

295

going into the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally,

296

culminating in a great international and universal federation."

297

[Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 270]

298

299

However, for anarchists the Commune did not go far enough. It did not

300

abolish the state within the Commune, as it had abolished it beyond it.

301

The Communards organised themselves "in a Jacobin manner" (to use

302

Bakunin's cutting term). As Peter Kropotkin pointed out, while

303

"proclaiming the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an

304

essential anarchist principle . . . they stopped mid-course" and gave

305

"themselves a Communal Council copied from the old municipal councils."

306

Thus the Paris Commune did not "break with the tradition of the State,

307

of representative government, and it did not attempt to achieve within

308

the Commune that organisation from the simple to the complex it

309

inaugurated by proclaiming the independence and free federation of the

310

Communes." This lead to disaster as the Commune council became

311

"immobilised . . . by red tape" and lost "the sensitivity that comes

312

from continued contact with the masses . . . Paralysed by their

313

distancing from the revolutionary centre -- the people -- they

314

themselves paralysed the popular initiative." [Words of a Rebel, p. 97,

315

p. 93 and p. 97]

316

317

In addition, its attempts at economic reform did not go far enough,

318

making no attempt to turn all workplaces into co-operatives (i.e. to

319

expropriate capital) and forming associations of these co-operatives to

320

co-ordinate and support each other's economic activities. Paris,

321

stressed Voltairine de Cleyre, "failed to strike at economic tyranny,

322

and so came of what it could have achieved" which was a "free community

323

whose economic affairs shall be arranged by the groups of actual

324

producers and distributors, eliminating the useless and harmful element

325

now in possession of the world's capital." [Op. Cit., p. 67] As the

326

city was under constant siege by the French army, it is understandable

327

that the Communards had other things on their minds. However, for

328

Kropotkin such a position was a disaster:

329

330

"They treated the economic question as a secondary one, which would

331

be attended to later on, after the triumph of the Commune . . . But

332

the crushing defeat which soon followed, and the blood-thirsty

333

revenge taken by the middle class, proved once more that the triumph

334

of a popular Commune was materially impossible without a parallel

335

triumph of the people in the economic field." [Op. Cit., p. 74]

336

337

Anarchists drew the obvious conclusions, arguing that "if no central

338

government was needed to rule the independent Communes, if the national

339

Government is thrown overboard and national unity is obtained by free

340

federation, then a central municipal Government becomes equally useless

341

and noxious. The same federative principle would do within the

342

Commune." [Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 75] Instead of

343

abolishing the state within the commune by organising federations of

344

directly democratic mass assemblies, like the Parisian "sections" of

345

the revolution of 1789-93 (see Kropotkin's Great French Revolution for

346

more on these), the Paris Commune kept representative government and

347

suffered for it. "Instead of acting for themselves . . . the people,

348

confiding in their governors, entrusted them the charge of taking the

349

initiative. This was the first consequence of the inevitable result of

350

elections." The council soon became "the greatest obstacle to the

351

revolution" thus proving the "political axiom that a government cannot

352

be revolutionary." [Anarchism, p. 240, p. 241 and p. 249]

353

354

The council become more and more isolated from the people who elected

355

it, and thus more and more irrelevant. And as its irrelevance grew, so

356

did its authoritarian tendencies, with the Jacobin majority creating a

357

"Committee of Public Safety" to "defend" (by terror) the "revolution."

358

The Committee was opposed by the libertarian socialist minority and

359

was, fortunately, ignored in practice by the people of Paris as they

360

defended their freedom against the French army, which was attacking

361

them in the name of capitalist civilisation and "liberty." On May 21st,

362

government troops entered the city, followed by seven days of bitter

363

street fighting. Squads of soldiers and armed members of the

364

bourgeoisie roamed the streets, killing and maiming at will. Over

365

25,000 people were killed in the street fighting, many murdered after

366

they had surrendered, and their bodies dumped in mass graves. As a

367

final insult, Sacr� Coeur was built by the bourgeoisie on the birth

368

place of the Commune, the Butte of Montmartre, to atone for the radical

369

and atheist revolt which had so terrified them.

370

371

For anarchists, the lessons of the Paris Commune were threefold.

372

Firstly, a decentralised confederation of communities is the necessary

373

political form of a free society ("This was the form that the social

374

revolution must take -- the independent commune." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit.,

375

p. 163]). Secondly, "there is no more reason for a government inside a

376

Commune than for government above the Commune." This means that an

377

anarchist community will be based on a confederation of neighbourhood

378

and workplace assemblies freely co-operating together. Thirdly, it is

379

critically important to unify political and economic revolutions into a

380

social revolution. "They tried to consolidate the Commune first and put

381

off the social revolution until later, whereas the only way to proceed

382

was to consolidate the Commune by means of the social revolution!"

383

[Peter Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel , p. 97]

384

385

For more anarchist perspectives on the Paris Commune see Kropotkin's

386

essay "The Paris Commune" in Words of a Rebel (and The Anarchist

387

Reader) and Bakunin's "The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State" in

388

Bakunin on Anarchism.

389

390

A.5.2 The Haymarket Martyrs

391

392

May 1st is a day of special significance for the labour movement. While

393

it has been hijacked in the past by the Stalinist bureaucracy in the

394

Soviet Union and elsewhere, the labour movement festival of May Day is

395

a day of world-wide solidarity. A time to remember past struggles and

396

demonstrate our hope for a better future. A day to remember that an

397

injury to one is an injury to all.

398

399

The history of Mayday is closely linked with the anarchist movement and

400

the struggles of working people for a better world. Indeed, it

401

originated with the execution of four anarchists in Chicago in 1886 for

402

organising workers in the fight for the eight-hour day. Thus May Day is

403

a product of "anarchy in action" -- of the struggle of working people

404

using direct action in labour unions to change the world.

405

406

It began in the 1880s in the USA. In 1884, the Federation of Organised

407

Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada (created in

408

1881, it changed its name in 1886 to the American Federation of Labor)

409

passed a resolution which asserted that "eight hours shall constitute a

410

legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to

411

labour organisations throughout this district that they so direct their

412

laws as to conform to this resolution." A call for strikes on May 1st,

413

1886 was made in support of this demand.

414

415

In Chicago the anarchists were the main force in the union movement,

416

and partially as a result of their presence, the unions translated this

417

call into strikes on May 1st. The anarchists thought that the eight

418

hour day could only be won through direct action and solidarity. They

419

considered that struggles for reforms, like the eight hour day, were

420

not enough in themselves. They viewed them as only one battle in an

421

ongoing class war that would only end by social revolution and the

422

creation of a free society. It was with these ideas that they organised

423

and fought.

424

425

In Chicago alone, 400 000 workers went out and the threat of strike

426

action ensured that more than 45 000 were granted a shorter working day

427

without striking. On May 3, 1886, police fired into a crowd of pickets

428

at the McCormick Harvester Machine Company, killing at least one

429

striker, seriously wounding five or six others, and injuring an

430

undetermined number. Anarchists called for a mass meeting the next day

431

in Haymarket Square to protest the brutality. According to the Mayor,

432

"nothing had occurred yet, or looked likely to occur to require

433

interference." However, as the meeting was breaking up a column of 180

434

police arrived and ordered the meeting to end. At this moment a bomb

435

was thrown into the police ranks, who opened fire on the crowd. How

436

many civilians were wounded or killed by the police was never exactly

437

ascertained, but 7 policemen eventually died (ironically, only one was

438

the victim of the bomb, the rest were a result of the bullets fired by

439

the police [Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy, p. 208]).

440

441

A "reign of terror" swept over Chicago, and the "organised banditti and

442

conscienceless brigands of capital suspended the only papers which

443

would give the side of those whom they crammed into prison cells. They

444

have invaded the homes of everyone who has ever known to have raised a

445

voice or sympathised with those who have aught to say against the

446

present system of robbery and oppression . . . they have invaded their

447

homes and subjected them and their families to indignities that must be

448

seen to be believed." [Lucy Parsons, Liberty, Equality & Solidarity, p.

449

53] Meeting halls, union offices, printing shops and private homes were

450

raided (usually without warrants). Such raids into working-class areas

451

allowed the police to round up all known anarchists and other

452

socialists. Many suspects were beaten up and some bribed. "Make the

453

raids first and look up the law afterwards" was the public statement of

454

J. Grinnell, the States Attorney, when a question was raised about

455

search warrants. ["Editor's Introduction", The Autobiographies of the

456

Haymarket Martyrs, p. 7]

457

458

Eight anarchists were put on trial for accessory to murder. No pretence

459

was made that any of the accused had carried out or even planned the

460

bomb. The judge ruled that it was not necessary for the state to

461

identify the actual perpetrator or prove that he had acted under the

462

influence of the accused. The state did not try to establish that the

463

defendants had in any way approved or abetted the act. In fact, only

464

three were present at the meeting when the bomb exploded and one of

465

those, Albert Parsons, was accompanied by his wife and fellow anarchist

466

Lucy and their two small children to the event.

467

468

The reason why these eight were picked was because of their anarchism

469

and union organising, as made clear by that State's Attorney when he

470

told the jury that "Law is on trial. Anarchy is on trial. These men

471

have been selected, picked out by the Grand Jury, and indicted because

472

they were leaders. They are no more guilty than the thousands who

473

follow them. Gentlemen of the jury; convict these men, make examples of

474

them, hang them and you save our institutions, our society." The jury

475

was selected by a special bailiff, nominated by the State's Attorney

476

and was explicitly chosen to compose of businessmen and a relative of

477

one of the cops killed. The defence was not allowed to present evidence

478

that the special bailiff had publicly claimed "I am managing this case

479

and I know what I am about. These fellows are going to be hanged as

480

certain as death." [Op. Cit., p. 8] Not surprisingly, the accused were

481

convicted. Seven were sentenced to death, one to 15 years'

482

imprisonment.

483

484

An international campaign resulted in two of the death sentences being

485

commuted to life, but the world wide protest did not stop the US state.

486

Of the remaining five, one (Louis Lingg) cheated the executioner and

487

killed himself on the eve of the execution. The remaining four (Albert

488

Parsons, August Spies, George Engel and Adolph Fischer) were hanged on

489

November 11th 1887. They are known in Labour history as the Haymarket

490

Martyrs. Between 150,000 and 500,000 lined the route taken by the

491

funeral cortege and between 10,000 to 25,000 were estimated to have

492

watched the burial.

493

494

In 1889, the American delegation attending the International Socialist

495

congress in Paris proposed that May 1st be adopted as a workers'

496

holiday. This was to commemorate working class struggle and the

497

"Martyrdom of the Chicago Eight". Since then Mayday has became a day

498

for international solidarity. In 1893, the new Governor of Illinois

499

made official what the working class in Chicago and across the world

500

knew all along and pardoned the Martyrs because of their obvious

501

innocence and because "the trial was not fair." To this day, no one

502

knows who threw the bomb -- the only definite fact is that it was not

503

any of those who were tried for the act: "Our comrades were not

504

murdered by the state because they had any connection with the

505

bomb-throwing, but because they had been active in organising the

506

wage-slaves of America." [Lucy Parsons, Op. Cit., p. 142]

507

508

The authorities had believed at the time of the trial that such

509

persecution would break the back of the labour movement. As Lucy

510

Parsons, a participant of the events, noted 20 years later, the

511

Haymarket trial "was a class trial -- relentless, vindictive, savage

512

and bloody. By that prosecution the capitalists sought to break the

513

great strike for the eight-hour day which as being successfully

514

inaugurated in Chicago, this city being the stormcentre of that great

515

movement; and they also intended, by the savage manner in which they

516

conducted the trial of these men, to frighten the working class back to

517

their long hours of toil and low wages from which they were attempting

518

to emerge. The capitalistic class imagined they could carry out their

519

hellish plot by putting to an ignominious death the most progressive

520

leaders among the working class of that day. In executing their bloody

521

deed of judicial murder they succeeded, but in arresting the mighty

522

onward movement of the class struggle they utterly failed." [Lucy

523

Parsons, Op. Cit., p. 128] In the words of August Spies when he

524

addressed the court after he had been sentenced to die:

525

526

"If you think that by hanging us you can stamp out the labour

527

movement . . . the movement from which the downtrodden millions, the

528

millions who toil in misery and want, expect salvation -- if this is

529

your opinion, then hang us! Here you will tread on a spark, but

530

there and there, behind you -- and in front of you, and everywhere,

531

flames blaze up. It is a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out."

532

[quoted by Paul Avrich, Op. Cit., p. 287]

533

534

At the time and in the years to come, this defiance of the state and

535

capitalism was to win thousands to anarchism, particularly in the US

536

itself. Since the Haymarket event, anarchists have celebrated May Day

537

(on the 1st of May -- the reformist unions and labour parties moved its

538

marches to the first Sunday of the month). We do so to show our

539

solidarity with other working class people across the world, to

540

celebrate past and present struggles, to show our power and remind the

541

ruling class of their vulnerability. As Nestor Makhno put it:

542

543

"That day those American workers attempted, by organising

544

themselves, to give expression to their protest against the

545

iniquitous order of the State and Capital of the propertied . . .

546

547

"The workers of Chicago . . . had gathered to resolve, in common,

548

the problems of their lives and their struggles. . .

549

550

"Today too . . . the toilers . . . regard the first of May as the

551

occasion of a get-together when they will concern themselves with

552

their own affairs and consider the matter of their emancipation."

553

[The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays, pp. 59-60]

554

555

Anarchists stay true to the origins of May Day and celebrate its birth

556

in the direct action of the oppressed. It is a classic example of

557

anarchist principles of direct action and solidarity, "an historic

558

event of great importance, inasmuch as it was, in the first place, the

559

first time that workers themselves had attempted to get a shorter work

560

day by united, simultaneous action . . . this strike was the first in

561

the nature of Direct Action on a large scale, the first in America."

562

[Lucy Parsons, Op. Cit., pp. 139-40] Oppression and exploitation breed

563

resistance and, for anarchists, May Day is an international symbol of

564

that resistance and power -- a power expressed in the last words of

565

August Spies, chiselled in stone on the monument to the Haymarket

566

martyrs in Waldheim Cemetery in Chicago:

567

568

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the

569

voices you are throttling today."

570

571

To understand why the state and business class were so determined to

572

hang the Chicago Anarchists, it is necessary to realise they were

573

considered the leaders of a massive radical union movement. In 1884,

574

the Chicago Anarchists produced the world's first daily anarchist

575

newspaper, the Chicagoer Arbeiter-Zeiting. This was written, read,

576

owned and published by the German immigrant working class movement. The

577

combined circulation of this daily plus a weekly (Vorbote) and a Sunday

578

edition (Fackel) more than doubled, from 13,000 per issues in 1880 to

579

26,980 in 1886. Anarchist weekly papers existed for other ethnic groups

580

as well (one English, one Bohemian and one Scandinavian).

581

582

Anarchists were very active in the Central Labour Union (which included

583

the eleven largest unions in the city) and aimed to make it, in the

584

words of Albert Parsons (one of the Martyrs), "the embryonic group of

585

the future 'free society.'" The anarchists were also part of the

586

International Working People's Association (also called the "Black

587

International") which had representatives from 26 cities at its

588

founding convention. The I.W.P.A. soon "made headway among trade

589

unions, especially in the mid-west" and its ideas of "direct action of

590

the rank and file" and of trade unions "serv[ing] as the instrument of

591

the working class for the complete destruction of capitalism and the

592

nucleus for the formation of a new society" became known as the

593

"Chicago Idea" (an idea which later inspired the Industrial Workers of

594

the World which was founded in Chicago in 1905). ["Editor's

595

Introduction," The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 4]

596

597

This idea was expressed in the manifesto issued at the I.W.P.A.'s

598

Pittsburgh Congress of 1883:

599

600

"First -- Destruction of the existing class rule, by all means, i.e.

601

by energetic, relentless, revolutionary and international action.

602

603

"Second -- Establishment of a free society based upon co-operative

604

organisation of production.

605

606

"Third -- Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the

607

productive organisations without commerce and profit-mongery.

608

609

"Fourth -- Organisation of education on a secular, scientific and

610

equal basis for both sexes.

611

612

"Fifth -- Equal rights for all without distinction to sex or race.

613

614

"Sixth -- Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between

615

autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting on a

616

federalistic basis."

617

[Op. Cit., p. 42]

618

619

In addition to their union organising, the Chicago anarchist movement

620

also organised social societies, picnics, lectures, dances, libraries

621

and a host of other activities. These all helped to forge a distinctly

622

working-class revolutionary culture in the heart of the "American

623

Dream." The threat to the ruling class and their system was too great

624

to allow it to continue (particularly with memories of the vast

625

uprising of labour in 1877 still fresh. As in 1886, that revolt was

626

also meet by state violence -- see Strike! by J. Brecher for details of

627

this strike movement as well as the Haymarket events). Hence the

628

repression, kangaroo court, and the state murder of those the state and

629

capitalist class considered "leaders" of the movement.

630

631

For more on the Haymarket Martyrs, their lives and their ideas, The

632

Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs is essential reading. Albert

633

Parsons, the only American born Martyr, produced a book which explained

634

what they stood for called Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific

635

Basis. Historian Paul Avrich's The Haymarket Tragedy is a useful in

636

depth account of the events.

637

638

A.5.3 Building the Syndicalist Unions

639

640

Just before the turn of the century in Europe, the anarchist movement

641

began to create one of the most successful attempts to apply anarchist

642

organisational ideas in everyday life. This was the building of mass

643

revolutionary unions (also known as syndicalism or

644

anarcho-syndicalism). The syndicalist movement, in the words of a

645

leading French syndicalist militant, was "a practical schooling in

646

anarchism" for it was "a laboratory of economic struggles" and

647

organised "along anarchic lines." By organising workers into

648

"libertarian organisations," the syndicalist unions were creating the

649

"free associations of free producers" within capitalism to combat it

650

and, ultimately, replace it. [Fernand Pelloutier, No Gods, No Masters,

651

vol. 2, p. 57, p. 55 and p. 56]

652

653

While the details of syndicalist organisation varied from country to

654

country, the main lines were the same. Workers should form themselves

655

into unions (or syndicates, the French for union). While organisation

656

by industry was generally the preferred form, craft and trade

657

organisations were also used. These unions were directly controlled by

658

their members and would federate together on an industrial and

659

geographical basis. Thus a given union would be federated with all the

660

local unions in a given town, region and country as well as with all

661

the unions within its industry into a national union (of, say, miners

662

or metal workers). Each union was autonomous and all officials were

663

part-time (and paid their normal wages if they missed work on union

664

business). The tactics of syndicalism were direct action and solidarity

665

and its aim was to replace capitalism by the unions providing the basic

666

framework of the new, free, society.

667

668

Thus, for anarcho-syndicalism, "the trade union is by no means a mere

669

transitory phenomenon bound up with the duration of capitalist society,

670

it is the germ of the Socialist economy of the future, the elementary

671

school of Socialism in general." The "economic fighting organisation of

672

the workers" gives their members "every opportunity for direct action

673

in their struggles for daily bread, it also provides them with the

674

necessary preliminaries for carrying through the reorganisation of

675

social life on a [libertarian] Socialist plan by them own strength."

676

[Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 59 and p. 62]

677

Anarcho-syndicalism, to use the expression of the I.W.W., aims to build

678

the new world in the shell of the old.

679

680

In the period from the 1890's to the outbreak of World War I,

681

anarchists built revolutionary unions in most European countries

682

(particularly in Spain, Italy and France). In addition, anarchists in

683

South and North America were also successful in organising syndicalist

684

unions (particularly Cuba, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil). Almost all

685

industrialised countries had some syndicalist movement, although Europe

686

and South America had the biggest and strongest ones. These unions were

687

organised in a confederal manner, from the bottom up, along anarchist

688

lines. They fought with capitalists on a day-to-day basis around the

689

issue of better wages and working conditions and the state for social

690

reforms, but they also sought to overthrow capitalism through the

691

revolutionary general strike.

692

693

Thus hundreds of thousands of workers around the world were applying

694

anarchist ideas in everyday life, proving that anarchy was no utopian

695

dream but a practical method of organising on a wide scale. That

696

anarchist organisational techniques encouraged member participation,

697

empowerment and militancy, and that they also successfully fought for

698

reforms and promoted class consciousness, can be seen in the growth of

699

anarcho-syndicalist unions and their impact on the labour movement. The

700

Industrial Workers of the World, for example, still inspires union

701

activists and has, throughout its long history, provided many union

702

songs and slogans.

703

704

However, as a mass movement, syndicalism effectively ended by the

705

1930s. This was due to two factors. Firstly, most of the syndicalist

706

unions were severely repressed just after World War I. In the immediate

707

post-war years they reached their height. This wave of militancy was

708

known as the "red years" in Italy, where it attained its high point

709

with factory occupations (see [2]section A.5.5). But these years also

710

saw the destruction of these unions in country after county. In the

711

USA, for example, the I.W.W. was crushed by a wave of repression backed

712

whole-heartedly by the media, the state, and the capitalist class.

713

Europe saw capitalism go on the offensive with a new weapon -- fascism.

714

Fascism arose (first in Italy and, most infamously, in Germany) as an

715

attempt by capitalism to physically smash the organisations the working

716

class had built. This was due to radicalism that had spread across

717

Europe in the wake of the war ending, inspired by the example of

718

Russia. Numerous near revolutions had terrified the bourgeoisie, who

719

turned to fascism to save their system.

720

721

In country after country, anarchists were forced to flee into exile,

722

vanish from sight, or became victims of assassins or concentration

723

camps after their (often heroic) attempts at fighting fascism failed.

724

In Portugal, for example, the 100,000 strong anarcho-syndicalist CGT

725

union launched numerous revolts in the late 1920s and early 1930s

726

against fascism. In January 1934, the CGT called for a revolutionary

727

general strike which developed into a five day insurrection. A state of

728

siege was declared by the state, which used extensive force to crush

729

the rebellion. The CGT, whose militants had played a prominent and

730

courageous role in the insurrection, was completely smashed and

731

Portugal remained a fascist state for the next 40 years. [Phil Mailer,

732

Portugal: The Impossible Revolution, pp. 72-3] In Spain, the CNT (the

733

most famous anarcho-syndicalist union) fought a similar battle. By

734

1936, it claimed one and a half million members. As in Italy and

735

Portugal, the capitalist class embraced fascism to save their power

736

from the dispossessed, who were becoming confident of their power and

737

their right to manage their own lives (see [3]section A.5.6).

738

739

As well as fascism, syndicalism also faced the negative influence of

740

Leninism. The apparent success of the Russian revolution led many

741

activists to turn to authoritarian politics, particularly in English

742

speaking countries and, to a lesser extent, France. Such notable

743

syndicalist activists as Tom Mann in England, William Gallacher in

744

Scotland and William Foster in the USA became Communists (the last two,

745

it should be noted, became Stalinist). Moreover, Communist parties

746

deliberately undermined the libertarian unions, encouraging fights and

747

splits (as, for example, in the I.W.W.). After the end of the Second

748

World War, the Stalinists finished off what fascism had started in

749

Eastern Europe and destroyed the anarchist and syndicalist movements in

750

such places as Bulgaria and Poland. In Cuba, Castro also followed

751

Lenin's example and did what the Batista and Machado dictatorship's

752

could not, namely smash the influential anarchist and syndicalist

753

movements (see Frank Fernandez's Cuban Anarchism for a history of this

754

movement from its origins in the 1860s to the 21st century).

755

756

So by the start of the second world war, the large and powerful

757

anarchist movements of Italy, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria and Portugal had

758

been crushed by fascism (but not, we must stress, without a fight).

759

When necessary, the capitalists supported authoritarian states in order

760

to crush the labour movement and make their countries safe for

761

capitalism. Only Sweden escaped this trend, where the syndicalist union

762

the SAC is still organising workers. It is, in fact, like many other

763

syndicalist unions active today, growing as workers turn away from

764

bureaucratic unions whose leaders seem more interested in protecting

765

their privileges and cutting deals with management than defending their

766

members. In France, Spain and Italy and elsewhere, syndicalist unions

767

are again on the rise, showing that anarchist ideas are applicable in

768

everyday life.

769

770

Finally, it must be stressed that syndicalism has its roots in the

771

ideas of the earliest anarchists and, consequently, was not invented in

772

the 1890s. It is true that development of syndicalism came about, in

773

part, as a reaction to the disastrous "propaganda by deed" period, in

774

which individual anarchists assassinated government leaders in attempts

775

to provoke a popular uprising and in revenge for the mass murders of

776

the Communards and other rebels (see [4]section A.2.18 for details).

777

But in response to this failed and counterproductive campaign,

778

anarchists went back to their roots and to the ideas of Bakunin. Thus,

779

as recognised by the likes of Kropotkin and Malatesta, syndicalism was

780

simply a return to the ideas current in the libertarian wing of the

781

First International.

782

783

Thus we find Bakunin arguing that "it is necessary to organise the

784

power of the proletariat. But this organisation must be the work of the

785

proletariat itself . . . Organise, constantly organise the

786

international militant solidarity of the workers, in every trade and

787

country, and remember that however weak you are as isolated individuals

788

or districts, you will constitute a tremendous, invincible power by

789

means of universal co-operation." As one American activist commented,

790

this is "the same militant spirit that breathes now in the best

791

expressions of the Syndicalist and I.W.W. movements" both of which

792

express "a strong world wide revival of the ideas for which Bakunin

793

laboured throughout his life." [Max Baginski, Anarchy! An Anthology of

794

Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, p. 71] As with the syndicalists, Bakunin

795

stressed the "organisation of trade sections, their federation . . .

796

bear in themselves the living germs of the new social order, which is

797

to replace the bourgeois world. They are creating not only the ideas

798

but also the facts of the future itself." [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Op.

799

Cit., p. 50]

800

801

Such ideas were repeated by other libertarians. Eugene Varlin, whose

802

role in the Paris Commune ensured his death, advocated a socialism of

803

associations, arguing in 1870 that syndicates were the "natural

804

elements" for the rebuilding of society: "it is they that can easily be

805

transformed into producer associations; it is they that can put into

806

practice the retooling of society and the organisation of production."

807

[quoted by Martin Phillip Johnson, The Paradise of Association, p. 139]

808

As we discussed in [5]section A.5.2, the Chicago Anarchists held

809

similar views, seeing the labour movement as both the means of

810

achieving anarchy and the framework of the free society. As Lucy

811

Parsons (the wife of Albert) put it "we hold that the granges,

812

trade-unions, Knights of Labour assemblies, etc., are the embryonic

813

groups of the ideal anarchistic society . . ." [contained in Albert R.

814

Parsons, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, p. 110] These

815

ideas fed into the revolutionary unionism of the I.W.W. As one

816

historian notes, the "proceedings of the I.W.W.'s inaugural convention

817

indicate that the participants were not only aware of the 'Chicago

818

Idea' but were conscious of a continuity between their efforts and the

819

struggles of the Chicago anarchists to initiate industrial unionism."

820

The Chicago idea represented "the earliest American expression of

821

syndicalism." [Salvatore Salerno, Red November, Black November, p. 71]

822

823

Thus, syndicalism and anarchism are not differing theories but, rather,

824

different interpretations of the same ideas (see for a fuller

825

discussion [6]section H.2.8). While not all syndicalists are anarchists

826

(some Marxists have proclaimed support for syndicalism) and not all

827

anarchists are syndicalists (see [7]section J.3.9 for a discussion

828

why), all social anarchists see the need for taking part in the labour

829

and other popular movements and encouraging libertarian forms of

830

organisation and struggle within them. By doing this, inside and

831

outside of syndicalist unions, anarchists are showing the validity of

832

our ideas. For, as Kropotkin stressed, the "next revolution must from

833

its inception bring about the seizure of the entire social wealth by

834

the workers in order to transform it into common property. This

835

revolution can succeed only through the workers, only if the urban and

836

rural workers everywhere carry out this objective themselves. To that

837

end, they must initiate their own action in the period before the

838

revolution; this can happen only if there is a strong workers'

839

organisation." [Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, p. 20]

840

Such popular self-managed organisations cannot be anything but "anarchy

841

in action."

842

843

A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution

844

845

The Russian revolution of 1917 saw a huge growth in anarchism in that

846

country and many experiments in anarchist ideas. However, in popular

847

culture the Russian Revolution is seen not as a mass movement by

848

ordinary people struggling towards freedom but as the means by which

849

Lenin imposed his dictatorship on Russia. The truth is radically

850

different. The Russian Revolution was a mass movement from below in

851

which many different currents of ideas existed and in which millions of

852

working people (workers in the cities and towns as well as peasants)

853

tried to transform their world into a better place. Sadly, those hopes

854

and dreams were crushed under the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party

855

-- first under Lenin, later under Stalin.

856

857

The Russian Revolution, like most history, is a good example of the

858

maxim "history is written by those who win." Most capitalist histories

859

of the period between 1917 and 1921 ignore what the anarchist Voline

860

called "the unknown revolution" -- the revolution called forth from

861

below by the actions of ordinary people. Leninist accounts, at best,

862

praise this autonomous activity of workers so long as it coincides with

863

their own party line but radically condemn it (and attribute it with

864

the basest motives) as soon as it strays from that line. Thus Leninist

865

accounts will praise the workers when they move ahead of the Bolsheviks

866

(as in the spring and summer of 1917) but will condemn them when they

867

oppose Bolshevik policy once the Bolsheviks are in power. At worse,

868

Leninist accounts portray the movement and struggles of the masses as

869

little more than a backdrop to the activities of the vanguard party.

870

871

For anarchists, however, the Russian Revolution is seen as a classic

872

example of a social revolution in which the self-activity of working

873

people played a key role. In their soviets, factory committees and

874

other class organisations, the Russian masses were trying to transform

875

society from a class-ridden, hierarchical statist regime into one based

876

on liberty, equality and solidarity. As such, the initial months of the

877

Revolution seemed to confirm Bakunin's prediction that the "future

878

social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the

879

free associations or federations of workers, firstly in their unions,

880

then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great

881

federation, international and universal." [Michael Bakunin: Selected

882

Writings, p. 206] The soviets and factory committees expressed

883

concretely Bakunin's ideas and Anarchists played an important role in

884

the struggle.

885

886

The initial overthrow of the Tsar came from the direct action of the

887

masses. In February 1917, the women of Petrograd erupted in bread

888

riots. On February 18th, the workers of the Putilov Works in Petrograd

889

went on strike. By February 22nd, the strike had spread to other

890

factories. Two days later, 200 000 workers were on strike and by

891

February 25th the strike was virtually general. The same day also saw

892

the first bloody clashes between protestors and the army. The turning

893

point came on the 27th, when some troops went over to the revolutionary

894

masses, sweeping along other units. This left the government without

895

its means of coercion, the Tsar abdicated and a provisional government

896

was formed.

897

898

So spontaneous was this movement that all the political parties were

899

left behind. This included the Bolsheviks, with the "Petrograd

900

organisation of the Bolsheviks oppos[ing] the calling of strikes

901

precisely on the eve of the revolution destined to overthrow the Tsar.

902

Fortunately, the workers ignored the Bolshevik 'directives' and went on

903

strike anyway . . . Had the workers followed its guidance, it is

904

doubtful that the revolution would have occurred when it did." [Murray

905

Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 123]

906

907

The revolution carried on in this vein of direct action from below

908

until the new, "socialist" state was powerful enough to stop it.

909

910

For the Left, the end of Tsarism was the culmination of years of effort

911

by socialists and anarchists everywhere. It represented the progressive

912

wing of human thought overcoming traditional oppression, and as such

913

was duly praised by leftists around the world. However, in Russia

914

things were progressing. In the workplaces and streets and on the land,

915

more and more people became convinced that abolishing feudalism

916

politically was not enough. The overthrow of the Tsar made little real

917

difference if feudal exploitation still existed in the economy, so

918

workers started to seize their workplaces and peasants, the land. All

919

across Russia, ordinary people started to build their own

920

organisations, unions, co-operatives, factory committees and councils

921

(or "soviets" in Russian). These organisations were initially organised

922

in anarchist fashion, with recallable delegates and being federated

923

with each other.

924

925

Needless to say, all the political parties and organisations played a

926

role in this process. The two wings of the Marxist social-democrats

927

were active (the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks), as were the Social

928

Revolutionaries (a populist peasant based party) and the anarchists.

929

The anarchists participated in this movement, encouraging all

930

tendencies to self-management and urging the overthrow of the

931

provisional government. They argued that it was necessary to transform

932

the revolution from a purely political one into an economic/social one.

933

Until the return of Lenin from exile, they were the only political

934

tendency who thought along those lines.

935

936

Lenin convinced his party to adopt the slogan "All Power to the

937

Soviets" and push the revolution forward. This meant a sharp break with

938

previous Marxist positions, leading one ex-Bolshevik turned Menshevik

939

to comment that Lenin had "made himself a candidate for one European

940

throne that has been vacant for thirty years -- the throne of Bakunin!"

941

[quoted by Alexander Rabinowitch, Prelude to Revolution, p. 40] The

942

Bolsheviks now turned to winning mass support, championing direct

943

action and supporting the radical actions of the masses, policies in

944

the past associated with anarchism ("the Bolsheviks launched . . .

945

slogans which until then had been particularly and insistently been

946

voiced by the Anarchists." [Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p. 210]).

947

Soon they were winning more and more votes in the soviet and factory

948

committee elections. As Alexander Berkman argues, the "Anarchist

949

mottoes proclaimed by the Bolsheviks did not fail to bring results. The

950

masses relied to their flag." [What is Anarchism?, p. 120]

951

952

The anarchists were also influential at this time. Anarchists were

953

particularly active in the movement for workers self-management of

954

production which existed around the factory committees (see M. Brinton,

955

The Bolsheviks and Workers Control for details). They were arguing for

956

workers and peasants to expropriate the owning class, abolish all forms

957

of government and re-organise society from the bottom up using their

958

own class organisations -- the soviets, the factory committees,

959

co-operatives and so on. They could also influence the direction of

960

struggle. As Alexander Rabinowitch (in his study of the July uprising

961

of 1917) notes:

962

963

"At the rank-and-file level, particularly within the [Petrograd]

964

garrison and at the Kronstadt naval base, there was in fact very

965

little to distinguish Bolshevik from Anarchist. . . The

966

Anarchist-Communists and the Bolsheviks competed for the support of

967

the same uneducated, depressed, and dissatisfied elements of the

968

population, and the fact is that in the summer of 1917, the

969

Anarchist-Communists, with the support they enjoyed in a few

970

important factories and regiments, possessed an undeniable capacity

971

to influence the course of events. Indeed, the Anarchist appeal was

972

great enough in some factories and military units to influence the

973

actions of the Bolsheviks themselves." [Op. Cit., p. 64]

974

975

Indeed, one leading Bolshevik stated in June, 1917 (in response to a

976

rise in anarchist influence), "[b]y fencing ourselves off from the

977

Anarchists, we may fence ourselves off from the masses." [quoted by

978

Alexander Rabinowitch, Op. Cit., p. 102]

979

980

The anarchists operated with the Bolsheviks during the October

981

Revolution which overthrew the provisional government. But things

982

changed once the authoritarian socialists of the Bolshevik party had

983

seized power. While both anarchists and Bolsheviks used many of the

984

same slogans, there were important differences between the two. As

985

Voline argued, "[f]rom the lips and pens of the Anarchists, those

986

slogans were sincere and concrete, for they corresponded to their

987

principles and called for action entirely in conformity with such

988

principles. But with the Bolsheviks, the same slogans meant practical

989

solutions totally different from those of the libertarians and did not

990

tally with the ideas which the slogans appeared to express." [The

991

Unknown Revolution, p. 210]

992

993

Take, for example, the slogan "All power to the Soviets." For

994

anarchists it meant exactly that -- organs for the working class to run

995

society directly, based on mandated, recallable delegates. For the

996

Bolsheviks, that slogan was simply the means for a Bolshevik government

997

to be formed over and above the soviets. The difference is important,

998

"for the Anarchists declared, if 'power' really should belong to the

999

soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik party, and if it should

1000

belong to that Party, as the Bolsheviks envisaged, it could not belong

1001

to the soviets." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 213] Reducing the soviets to

1002

simply executing the decrees of the central (Bolshevik) government and

1003

having their All-Russian Congress be able to recall the government

1004

(i.e. those with real power) does not equal "all power," quite the

1005

reverse.

1006

1007

Similarly with the term "workers' control of production." Before the

1008

October Revolution Lenin saw "workers' control" purely in terms of the

1009

"universal, all-embracing workers' control over the capitalists." [Will

1010

the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?, p. 52] He did not see it in terms of

1011

workers' management of production itself (i.e. the abolition of wage

1012

labour) via federations of factory committees. Anarchists and the

1013

workers' factory committees did. As S.A. Smith correctly notes, Lenin

1014

used "the term ['workers' control'] in a very different sense from that

1015

of the factory committees." In fact Lenin's "proposals . . . [were]

1016

thoroughly statist and centralist in character, whereas the practice of

1017

the factory committees was essentially local and autonomous." [Red

1018

Petrograd, p. 154] For anarchists, "if the workers' organisations were

1019

capable of exercising effective control [over their bosses], then they

1020

also were capable of guaranteeing all production. In such an event,

1021

private industry could be eliminated quickly but progressively, and

1022

replaced by collective industry. Consequently, the Anarchists rejected

1023

the vague nebulous slogan of 'control of production.' They advocated

1024

expropriation -- progressive, but immediate -- of private industry by

1025

the organisations of collective production." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 221]

1026

1027

Once in power, the Bolsheviks systematically undermined the popular

1028

meaning of workers' control and replaced it with their own, statist

1029

conception. "On three occasions," one historian notes, "in the first

1030

months of Soviet power, the [factory] committee leaders sought to bring

1031

their model into being. At each point the party leadership overruled

1032

them. The result was to vest both managerial and control powers in

1033

organs of the state which were subordinate to the central authorities,

1034

and formed by them." [Thomas F. Remington, Building Socialism in

1035

Bolshevik Russia, p. 38] This process ultimately resulted in Lenin

1036

arguing for, and introducing, "one-man management" armed with

1037

"dictatorial" power (with the manager appointed from above by the

1038

state) in April 1918. This process is documented in Maurice Brinton's

1039

The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, which also indicates the clear

1040

links between Bolshevik practice and Bolshevik ideology as well as how

1041

both differed from popular activity and ideas.

1042

1043

Hence the comments by Russian Anarchist Peter Arshinov:

1044

1045

"Another no less important peculiarity is that [the] October

1046

[revolution of 1917] has two meanings -- that which the working'

1047

masses who participated in the social revolution gave it, and with

1048

them the Anarchist-Communists, and that which was given it by the

1049

political party [the Marxist-Communists] that captured power from

1050

this aspiration to social revolution, and which betrayed and stifled

1051

all further development. An enormous gulf exists between these two

1052

interpretations of October. The October of the workers and peasants

1053

is the suppression of the power of the parasite classes in the name

1054

of equality and self-management. The Bolshevik October is the

1055

conquest of power by the party of the revolutionary intelligentsia,

1056

the installation of its 'State Socialism' and of its 'socialist'

1057

methods of governing the masses." [The Two Octobers]

1058

1059

Initially, anarchists had supported the Bolsheviks, since the Bolshevik

1060

leaders had hidden their state-building ideology behind support for the

1061

soviets (as socialist historian Samuel Farber notes, the anarchists

1062

"had actually been an unnamed coalition partner of the Bolsheviks in

1063

the October Revolution." [Before Stalinism, p. 126]). However, this

1064

support quickly "withered away" as the Bolsheviks showed that they

1065

were, in fact, not seeking true socialism but were instead securing

1066

power for themselves and pushing not for collective ownership of land

1067

and productive resources but for government ownership. The Bolsheviks,

1068

as noted, systematically undermined the workers'

1069

control/self-management movement in favour of capitalist-like forms of

1070

workplace management based around "one-man management" armed with

1071

"dictatorial powers."

1072

1073

As regards the soviets, the Bolsheviks systematically undermining what

1074

limited independence and democracy they had. In response to the "great

1075

Bolshevik losses in the soviet elections" during the spring and summer

1076

of 1918 "Bolshevik armed force usually overthrew the results of these

1077

provincial elections." Also, the "government continually postponed the

1078

new general elections to the Petrograd Soviet, the term of which had

1079

ended in March 1918. Apparently, the government feared that the

1080

opposition parties would show gains." [Samuel Farber, Op. Cit., p. 24

1081

and p. 22] In the Petrograd elections, the Bolsheviks "lost the

1082

absolute majority in the soviet they had previously enjoyed" but

1083

remained the largest party. However, the results of the Petrograd

1084

soviet elections were irrelevant as a "Bolshevik victory was assured by

1085

the numerically quite significant representation now given to trade

1086

unions, district soviets, factory-shop committees, district workers

1087

conferences, and Red Army and naval units, in which the Bolsheviks had

1088

overwhelming strength." [Alexander Rabinowitch, "The Evolution of Local

1089

Soviets in Petrograd", pp. 20-37, Slavic Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, p.

1090

36f] In other words, the Bolsheviks had undermined the democratic

1091

nature of the soviet by swamping it by their own delegates. Faced with

1092

rejection in the soviets, the Bolsheviks showed that for them "soviet

1093

power" equalled party power. To stay in power, the Bolsheviks had to

1094

destroy the soviets, which they did. The soviet system remained

1095

"soviet" in name only. Indeed, from 1919 onwards Lenin, Trotsky and

1096

other leading Bolsheviks were admitting that they had created a party

1097

dictatorship and, moreover, that such a dictatorship was essential for

1098

any revolution (Trotsky supported party dictatorship even after the

1099

rise of Stalinism).

1100

1101

The Red Army, moreover, no longer was a democratic organisation. In

1102

March of 1918 Trotsky had abolished the election of officers and

1103

soldier committees:

1104

1105

"the principle of election is politically purposeless and

1106

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

1107

decree." [Work, Discipline, Order]

1108

1109

As Maurice Brinton correctly summarises:

1110

1111

"Trotsky, appointed Commissar of Military Affairs after

1112

Brest-Litovsk, had rapidly been reorganising the Red Army. The death

1113

penalty for disobedience under fire had been restored. So, more

1114

gradually, had saluting, special forms of address, separate living

1115

quarters and other privileges for officers. Democratic forms of

1116

organisation, including the election of officers, had been quickly

1117

dispensed with." ["The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control", For

1118

Workers' Power, pp. 336-7]

1119

1120

Unsurprisingly, Samuel Farber notes that "there is no evidence

1121

indicating that Lenin or any of the mainstream Bolshevik leaders

1122

lamented the loss of workers' control or of democracy in the soviets,

1123

or at least referred to these losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared

1124

with the replacement of War Communism by NEP in 1921." [Before

1125

Stalinism, p. 44]

1126

1127

Thus after the October Revolution, anarchists started to denounce the

1128

Bolshevik regime and call for a "Third Revolution" which would finally

1129

free the masses from all bosses (capitalist or socialist). They exposed

1130

the fundamental difference between the rhetoric of Bolshevism (as

1131

expressed, for example, in Lenin's State and Revolution) with its

1132

reality. Bolshevism in power had proved Bakunin's prediction that the

1133

"dictatorship of the proletariat" would become the "dictatorship over

1134

the proletariat" by the leaders of the Communist Party.

1135

1136

The influence of the anarchists started to grow. As Jacques Sadoul (a

1137

French officer) noted in early 1918:

1138

1139

"The anarchist party is the most active, the most militant of the

1140

opposition groups and probably the most popular . . . The Bolsheviks

1141

are anxious." [quoted by Daniel Guerin, Anarchism, pp. 95-6]

1142

1143

By April 1918, the Bolsheviks began the physical suppression of their

1144

anarchist rivals. On April 12th, 1918, the Cheka (the secret police

1145

formed by Lenin in December, 1917) attacked anarchist centres in

1146

Moscow. Those in other cities were attacked soon after. As well as

1147

repressing their most vocal opponents on the left, the Bolsheviks were

1148

restricting the freedom of the masses they claimed to be protecting.

1149

Democratic soviets, free speech, opposition political parties and

1150

groups, self-management in the workplace and on the land -- all were

1151

destroyed in the name of "socialism." All this happened, we must

1152

stress, before the start of the Civil War in late May, 1918, which most

1153

supporters of Leninism blame for the Bolsheviks' authoritarianism.

1154

During the civil war, this process accelerated, with the Bolsheviks'

1155

systematically repressing opposition from all quarters -- including the

1156

strikes and protests of the very class who they claimed was exercising

1157

its "dictatorship" while they were in power!

1158

1159

It is important to stress that this process had started well before the

1160

start of the civil war, confirming anarchist theory that a "workers'

1161

state" is a contraction in terms. For anarchists, the Bolshevik

1162

substitution of party power for workers power (and the conflict between

1163

the two) did not come as a surprise. The state is the delegation of

1164

power -- as such, it means that the idea of a "workers' state"

1165

expressing "workers' power" is a logical impossibility. If workers are

1166

running society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then

1167

power rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in

1168

the hands of all. The state was designed for minority rule. No state

1169

can be an organ of working class (i.e. majority) self-management due to

1170

its basic nature, structure and design. For this reason anarchists have

1171

argued for a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the agent of

1172

revolution and the means of managing society after capitalism and the

1173

state have been abolished.

1174

1175

As we discuss in [8]section H, the degeneration of the Bolsheviks from

1176

a popular working class party into dictators over the working class did

1177

not occur by accident. A combination of political ideas and the

1178

realities of state power (and the social relationships it generates)

1179

could not help but result in such a degeneration. The political ideas

1180

of Bolshevism, with its vanguardism, fear of spontaneity and

1181

identification of party power with working class power inevitably meant

1182

that the party would clash with those whom it claimed to represent.

1183

After all, if the party is the vanguard then, automatically, everyone

1184

else is a "backward" element. This meant that if the working class

1185

resisted Bolshevik policies or rejected them in soviet elections, then

1186

the working class was "wavering" and being influenced by

1187

"petty-bourgeois" and "backward" elements. Vanguardism breeds elitism

1188

and, when combined with state power, dictatorship.

1189

1190

State power, as anarchists have always stressed, means the delegation

1191

of power into the hands of a few. This automatically produces a class

1192

division in society -- those with power and those without. As such,

1193

once in power the Bolsheviks were isolated from the working class. The

1194

Russian Revolution confirmed Malatesta's argument that a "government,

1195

that is a group of people entrusted with making laws and empowered to

1196

use the collective power to oblige each individual to obey them, is

1197

already a privileged class and cut off from the people. As any

1198

constituted body would do, it will instinctively seek to extend its

1199

powers, to be beyond public control, to impose its own policies and to

1200

give priority to its special interests. Having been put in a privileged

1201

position, the government is already at odds with the people whose

1202

strength it disposes of." [Anarchy, p. 34] A highly centralised state

1203

such as the Bolsheviks built would reduce accountability to a minimum

1204

while at the same time accelerating the isolation of the rulers from

1205

the ruled. The masses were no longer a source of inspiration and power,

1206

but rather an alien group whose lack of "discipline" (i.e. ability to

1207

follow orders) placed the revolution in danger. As one Russian

1208

Anarchist argued,

1209

1210

"The proletariat is being gradually enserfed by the state. The

1211

people are being transformed into servants over whom there has

1212

arisen a new class of administrators -- a new class born mainly form

1213

the womb of the so-called intelligentsia . . . We do not mean to say

1214

. . . that the Bolshevik party set out to create a new class system.

1215

But we do say that even the best intentions and aspirations must

1216

inevitably be smashed against the evils inherent in any system of

1217

centralised power. The separation of management from labour, the

1218

division between administrators and workers flows logically from

1219

centralisation. It cannot be otherwise." [The Anarchists in the

1220

Russian Revolution, pp. 123-4]

1221

1222

For this reason anarchists, while agreeing that there is an uneven

1223

development of political ideas within the working class, reject the

1224

idea that "revolutionaries" should take power on behalf of working

1225

people. Only when working people actually run society themselves will a

1226

revolution be successful. For anarchists, this meant that "[e]ffective

1227

emancipation can be achieved only by the direct, widespread, and

1228

independent action . . . of the workers themselves, grouped . . . in

1229

their own class organisations . . . on the basis of concrete action and

1230

self-government, helped but not governed, by revolutionaries working in

1231

the very midst of, and not above the mass and the professional,

1232

technical, defence and other branches." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 197] By

1233

substituting party power for workers power, the Russian Revolution had

1234

made its first fatal step. Little wonder that the following prediction

1235

(from November 1917) made by anarchists in Russia came true:

1236

1237

"Once their power is consolidated and 'legalised', the Bolsheviks

1238

who are . . . men of centralist and authoritarian action will begin

1239

to rearrange the life of the country and of the people by

1240

governmental and dictatorial methods, imposed by the centre. The[y]

1241

. . . will dictate the will of the party to all Russia, and command

1242

the whole nation. Your Soviets and your other local organisations

1243

will become little by little, simply executive organs of the will of

1244

the central government. In the place of healthy, constructive work

1245

by the labouring masses, in place of free unification from the

1246

bottom, we will see the installation of an authoritarian and statist

1247

apparatus which would act from above and set about wiping out

1248

everything that stood in its way with an iron hand." [quoted by

1249

Voline, Op. Cit., p. 235]

1250

1251

The so-called "workers' state" could not be participatory or empowering

1252

for working class people (as the Marxists claimed) simply because state

1253

structures are not designed for that. Created as instruments of

1254

minority rule, they cannot be transformed into (nor "new" ones created

1255

which are) a means of liberation for the working classes. As Kropotkin

1256

put it, Anarchists "maintain that the State organisation, having been

1257

the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising

1258

their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to

1259

destroy these privileges." [Anarchism, p. 170] In the words of an

1260

anarchist pamphlet written in 1918:

1261

1262

"Bolshevism, day by day and step by step, proves that state power

1263

possesses inalienable characteristics; it can change its label, its

1264

'theory', and its servitors, but in essence it merely remains power

1265

and despotism in new forms." [quoted by Paul Avrich, "The Anarchists

1266

in the Russian Revolution," pp. 341-350, Russian Review, vol. 26,

1267

issue no. 4, p. 347]

1268

1269

For insiders, the Revolution had died a few months after the Bolsheviks

1270

took over. To the outside world, the Bolsheviks and the USSR came to

1271

represent "socialism" even as they systematically destroyed the basis

1272

of real socialism. By transforming the soviets into state bodies,

1273

substituting party power for soviet power, undermining the factory

1274

committees, eliminating democracy in the armed forces and workplaces,

1275

repressing the political opposition and workers' protests, the

1276

Bolsheviks effectively marginalised the working class from its own

1277

revolution. Bolshevik ideology and practice were themselves important

1278

and sometimes decisive factors in the degeneration of the revolution

1279

and the ultimate rise of Stalinism.

1280

1281

As anarchists had predicted for decades previously, in the space of a

1282

few months, and before the start of the Civil War, the Bolshevik's

1283

"workers' state" had become, like any state, an alien power over the

1284

working class and an instrument of minority rule (in this case, the

1285

rule of the party). The Civil War accelerated this process and soon

1286

party dictatorship was introduced (indeed, leading Bolsheviks began

1287

arguing that it was essential in any revolution). The Bolsheviks put

1288

down the libertarian socialist elements within their country, with the

1289

crushing of the uprising at Kronstadt and the Makhnovist movement in

1290

the Ukraine being the final nails in the coffin of socialism and the

1291

subjugation of the soviets.

1292

1293

The Kronstadt uprising of February, 1921, was, for anarchists, of

1294

immense importance (see the appendix [9]"What was the Kronstadt

1295

Rebellion?" for a full discussion of this uprising). The uprising

1296

started when the sailors of Kronstadt supported the striking workers of

1297

Petrograd in February, 1921. They raised a 15 point resolution, the

1298

first point of which was a call for soviet democracy. The Bolsheviks

1299

slandered the Kronstadt rebels as counter-revolutionaries and crushed

1300

the revolt. For anarchists, this was significant as the repression

1301

could not be justified in terms of the Civil War (which had ended

1302

months before) and because it was a major uprising of ordinary people

1303

for real socialism. As Voline puts it:

1304

1305

"Kronstadt was the first entirely independent attempt of the people

1306

to liberate themselves of all yokes and carry out the Social

1307

Revolution: this attempt was made directly . . . by the working

1308

masses themselves, without political shepherds, without leaders or

1309

tutors. It was the first step towards the third and social

1310

revolution." [Voline, Op. Cit., pp. 537-8]

1311

1312

In the Ukraine, anarchist ideas were most successfully applied. In

1313

areas under the protection of the Makhnovist movement, working class

1314

people organised their own lives directly, based on their own ideas and

1315

needs -- true social self-determination. Under the leadership of Nestor

1316

Makhno, a self-educated peasant, the movement not only fought against

1317

both Red and White dictatorships but also resisted the Ukrainian

1318

nationalists. In opposition to the call for "national

1319

self-determination," i.e. a new Ukrainian state, Makhno called instead

1320

for working class self-determination in the Ukraine and across the

1321

world. Makhno inspired his fellow peasants and workers to fight for

1322

real freedom:

1323

1324

"Conquer or die -- such is the dilemma that faces the Ukrainian

1325

peasants and workers at this historic moment . . . But we will not

1326

conquer in order to repeat the errors of the past years, the error

1327

of putting our fate into the hands of new masters; we will conquer

1328

in order to take our destinies into our own hands, to conduct our

1329

lives according to our own will and our own conception of the

1330

truth." [quoted by Peter Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist

1331

Movement, p. 58]

1332

1333

To ensure this end, the Makhnovists refused to set up governments in

1334

the towns and cities they liberated, instead urging the creation of

1335

free soviets so that the working people could govern themselves. Taking

1336

the example of Aleksandrovsk, once they had liberated the city the

1337

Makhnovists "immediately invited the working population to participate

1338

in a general conference . . . it was proposed that the workers organise

1339

the life of the city and the functioning of the factories with their

1340

own forces and their own organisations . . . The first conference was

1341

followed by a second. The problems of organising life according to

1342

principles of self-management by workers were examined and discussed

1343

with animation by the masses of workers, who all welcomed this ideas

1344

with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers took the first step

1345

. . . They formed a committee charged with organising the railway

1346

network of the region . . . From this point, the proletariat of

1347

Aleksandrovsk began to turn systematically to the problem of creating

1348

organs of self-management." [Op. Cit., p. 149]

1349

1350

The Makhnovists argued that the "freedom of the workers and peasants is

1351

their own, and not subject to any restriction. It is up to the workers

1352

and peasants themselves to act, to organise themselves, to agree among

1353

themselves in all aspects of their lives, as they see fit and desire .

1354

. . The Makhnovists can do no more than give aid and counsel . . . In

1355

no circumstances can they, nor do they wish to, govern." [Peter

1356

Arshinov, quoted by Guerin, Op. Cit., p. 99] In Alexandrovsk, the

1357

Bolsheviks proposed to the Makhnovists spheres of action - their Revkom

1358

(Revolutionary Committee) would handle political affairs and the

1359

Makhnovists military ones. Makhno advised them "to go and take up some

1360

honest trade instead of seeking to impose their will on the workers."

1361

[Peter Arshinov in The Anarchist Reader, p. 141]

1362

1363

They also organised free agricultural communes which "[a]dmittedly . .

1364

. were not numerous, and included only a minority of the population . .

1365

. But what was most precious was that these communes were formed by the

1366

poor peasants themselves. The Makhnovists never exerted any pressure on

1367

the peasants, confining themselves to propagating the idea of free

1368

communes." [Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 87] Makhno

1369

played an important role in abolishing the holdings of the landed

1370

gentry. The local soviet and their district and regional congresses

1371

equalised the use of the land between all sections of the peasant

1372

community. [Op. Cit., pp. 53-4]

1373

1374

Moreover, the Makhnovists took the time and energy to involve the whole

1375

population in discussing the development of the revolution, the

1376

activities of the army and social policy. They organised numerous

1377

conferences of workers', soldiers' and peasants' delegates to discuss

1378

political and social issues as well as free soviets, unions and

1379

communes. They organised a regional congress of peasants and workers

1380

when they had liberated Aleksandrovsk. When the Makhnovists tried to

1381

convene the third regional congress of peasants, workers and insurgents

1382

in April 1919 and an extraordinary congress of several regions in June

1383

1919 the Bolsheviks viewed them as counter-revolutionary, tried to ban

1384

them and declared their organisers and delegates outside the law.

1385

1386

The Makhnovists replied by holding the conferences anyway and asking

1387

"[c]an there exist laws made by a few people who call themselves

1388

revolutionaries, which permit them to outlaw a whole people who are

1389

more revolutionary than they are themselves?" and "[w]hose interests

1390

should the revolution defend: those of the Party or those of the people

1391

who set the revolution in motion with their blood?" Makhno himself

1392

stated that he "consider[ed] it an inviolable right of the workers and

1393

peasants, a right won by the revolution, to call conferences on their

1394

own account, to discuss their affairs." [Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 129]

1395

1396

In addition, the Makhnovists "fully applied the revolutionary

1397

principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the press, and of

1398

political association. In all cities and towns occupied by the

1399

Makhnovists, they began by lifting all the prohibitions and repealing

1400

all the restrictions imposed on the press and on political

1401

organisations by one or another power." Indeed, the "only restriction

1402

that the Makhnovists considered necessary to impose on the Bolsheviks,

1403

the left Socialist-Revolutionaries and other statists was a prohibition

1404

on the formation of those 'revolutionary committees' which sought to

1405

impose a dictatorship over the people." [Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 154]

1406

1407

The Makhnovists rejected the Bolshevik corruption of the soviets and

1408

instead proposed "the free and completely independent soviet system of

1409

working people without authorities and their arbitrary laws." Their

1410

proclamations stated that the "working people themselves must freely

1411

choose their own soviets, which carry out the will and desires of the

1412

working people themselves, that is to say. ADMINISTRATIVE, not ruling

1413

soviets." Economically, capitalism would be abolished along with the

1414

state - the land and workshops "must belong to the working people

1415

themselves, to those who work in them, that is to say, they must be

1416

socialised." [Op. Cit., p. 271 and p. 273]

1417

1418

The army itself, in stark contrast to the Red Army, was fundamentally

1419

democratic (although, of course, the horrific nature of the civil war

1420

did result in a few deviations from the ideal -- however, compared to

1421

the regime imposed on the Red Army by Trotsky, the Makhnovists were

1422

much more democratic movement).

1423

1424

The anarchist experiment of self-management in the Ukraine came to a

1425

bloody end when the Bolsheviks turned on the Makhnovists (their former

1426

allies against the "Whites," or pro-Tsarists) when they were no longer

1427

needed. This important movement is fully discussed in the appendix

1428

[10]"Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to

1429

Bolshevism?" of our FAQ. However, we must stress here the one obvious

1430

lesson of the Makhnovist movement, namely that the dictatorial policies

1431

pursued by the Bolsheviks were not imposed on them by objective

1432

circumstances. Rather, the political ideas of Bolshevism had a clear

1433

influence in the decisions they made. After all, the Makhnovists were

1434

active in the same Civil War and yet did not pursue the same policies

1435

of party power as the Bolsheviks did. Rather, they successfully

1436

encouraged working class freedom, democracy and power in extremely

1437

difficult circumstances (and in the face of strong Bolshevik opposition

1438

to those policies). The received wisdom on the left is that there was

1439

no alternative open to the Bolsheviks. The experience of the

1440

Makhnovists disproves this. What the masses of people, as well as those

1441

in power, do and think politically is as much part of the process

1442

determining the outcome of history as are the objective obstacles that

1443

limit the choices available. Clearly, ideas do matter and, as such, the

1444

Makhnovists show that there was (and is) a practical alternative to

1445

Bolshevism -- anarchism.

1446

1447

The last anarchist march in Moscow until 1987 took place at the funeral

1448

of Kropotkin in 1921, when over 10,000 marched behind his coffin. They

1449

carried black banners declaring "Where there is authority, there is no

1450

freedom" and "The Liberation of the working class is the task of the

1451

workers themselves." As the procession passed the Butyrki prison, the

1452

inmates sang anarchist songs and shook the bars of their cells.

1453

1454

Anarchist opposition within Russia to the Bolshevik regime started in

1455

1918. They were the first left-wing group to be repressed by the new

1456

"revolutionary" regime. Outside of Russia, anarchists continued to

1457

support the Bolsheviks until news came from anarchist sources about the

1458

repressive nature of the Bolshevik regime (until then, many had

1459

discounted negative reports as being from pro-capitalist sources). Once

1460

these reliable reports came in, anarchists across the globe rejected

1461

Bolshevism and its system of party power and repression. The experience

1462

of Bolshevism confirmed Bakunin's prediction that Marxism meant "the

1463

highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small

1464

aristocracy of real or pretended scholars. The people are not learned,

1465

so they will be liberated from the cares of government and included in

1466

entirety in the governed herd." [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 178-9]

1467

1468

From about 1921 on, anarchists outside of Russia started describing the

1469

USSR as "state-capitalist" to indicate that although individual bosses

1470

might have been eliminated, the Soviet state bureaucracy played the

1471

same role as individual bosses do in the West (anarchists within Russia

1472

had been calling it that since 1918). For anarchists, "the Russian

1473

revolution . . . is trying to reach . . . economic equality . . . this

1474

effort has been made in Russia under a strongly centralised party

1475

dictatorship . . . this effort to build a communist republic on the

1476

basis of a strongly centralised state communism under the iron law of a

1477

party dictatorship is bound to end in failure. We are learning to know

1478

in Russia how not to introduce communism." [Anarchism, p. 254]

1479

1480

This meant exposing that Berkman called "The Bolshevik Myth," the idea

1481

that the Russian Revolution was a success and should be copied by

1482

revolutionaries in other countries: "It is imperative to unmask the

1483

great delusion, which otherwise might lead the Western workers to the

1484

same abyss as their brothers [and sisters] in Russia. It is incumbent

1485

upon those who have seen through the myth to expose its true nature."

1486

["The Anti-Climax'", The Bolshevik Myth, p. 342] Moreover, anarchists

1487

felt that it was their revolutionary duty not only present and learn

1488

from the facts of the revolution but also show solidarity with those

1489

subject to Bolshevik dictatorship. As Emma Goldman argued, she had not

1490

"come to Russia expecting to find Anarchism realised." Such idealism

1491

was alien to her (although that has not stopped Leninists saying the

1492

opposite). Rather, she expected to see "the beginnings of the social

1493

changes for which the Revolution had been fought." She was aware that

1494

revolutions were difficult, involving "destruction" and "violence."

1495

That Russia was not perfect was not the source of her vocal opposition

1496

to Bolshevism. Rather, it was the fact that "the Russian people have

1497

been locked out" of their own revolution by the Bolshevik state which

1498

used "the sword and the gun to keep the people out." As a revolutionary

1499

she refused "to side with the master class, which in Russia is called

1500

the Communist Party." [My Disillusionment in Russia, p. xlvii and p.

1501

xliv]

1502

1503

For more information on the Russian Revolution and the role played by

1504

anarchists, see the appendix on [11]"The Russian Revolution" of the

1505

FAQ. As well as covering the Kronstadt uprising and the Makhnovists, it

1506

discusses why the revolution failed, the role of Bolshevik ideology

1507

played in that failure and whether there were any alternatives to

1508

Bolshevism.

1509

1510

The following books are also recommended: The Unknown Revolution by

1511

Voline; The Guillotine at Work by G.P. Maximov; The Bolshevik Myth and

1512

The Russian Tragedy, both by Alexander Berkman; The Bolsheviks and

1513

Workers Control by M. Brinton; The Kronstadt Uprising by Ida Mett; The

1514

History of the Makhnovist Movement by Peter Arshinov; My

1515

Disillusionment in Russia and Living My Life by Emma Goldman; Nestor

1516

Makhno Anarchy's Cossack: The struggle for free soviets in the Ukraine

1517

1917-1921 by Alexandre Skirda.

1518

1519

Many of these books were written by anarchists active during the

1520

revolution, many imprisoned by the Bolsheviks and deported to the West

1521

due to international pressure exerted by anarcho-syndicalist delegates

1522

to Moscow who the Bolsheviks were trying to win over to Leninism. The

1523

majority of such delegates stayed true to their libertarian politics

1524

and convinced their unions to reject Bolshevism and break with Moscow.

1525

By the early 1920's all the anarcho-syndicalist union confederations

1526

had joined with the anarchists in rejecting the "socialism" in Russia

1527

as state capitalism and party dictatorship.

1528

1529

A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations

1530

1531

After the end of the First World War there was a massive radicalisation

1532

across Europe and the world. Union membership exploded, with strikes,

1533

demonstrations and agitation reaching massive levels. This was partly

1534

due to the war, partly to the apparent success of the Russian

1535

Revolution. This enthusiasm for the Russian Revolution even reached

1536

Individualist Anarchists like Joseph Labadie, who like many other

1537

anti-capitalists, saw "the red in the east [giving] hope of a brighter

1538

day" and the Bolsheviks as making "laudable efforts to at least try

1539

some way out of the hell of industrial slavery." [quoted by Carlotta R.

1540

Anderson, All-American Anarchist p. 225 and p. 241]

1541

1542

Across Europe, anarchist ideas became more popular and

1543

anarcho-syndicalist unions grew in size. For example, in Britain, the

1544

ferment produced the shop stewards' movement and the strikes on

1545

Clydeside; Germany saw the rise of IWW inspired industrial unionism and

1546

a libertarian form of Marxism called "Council Communism"; Spain saw a

1547

massive growth in the anarcho-syndicalist CNT. In addition, it also,

1548

unfortunately, saw the rise and growth of both social democratic and

1549

communist parties. Italy was no exception.

1550

1551

In Turin, a new rank-and-file movement was developing. This movement

1552

was based around the "internal commissions" (elected ad hoc grievance

1553

committees). These new organisations were based directly on the group

1554

of people who worked together in a particular work shop, with a

1555

mandated and recallable shop steward elected for each group of 15 to 20

1556

or so workers. The assembly of all the shop stewards in a given plant

1557

then elected the "internal commission" for that facility, which was

1558

directly and constantly responsible to the body of shop stewards, which

1559

was called the "factory council."

1560

1561

Between November 1918 and March 1919, the internal commissions had

1562

become a national issue within the trade union movement. On February

1563

20, 1919, the Italian Federation of Metal Workers (FIOM) won a contract

1564

providing for the election of "internal commissions" in the factories.

1565

The workers subsequently tried to transform these organs of workers'

1566

representation into factory councils with a managerial function. By May

1567

Day 1919, the internal commissions "were becoming the dominant force

1568

within the metalworking industry and the unions were in danger of

1569

becoming marginal administrative units. Behind these alarming

1570

developments, in the eyes of reformists, lay the libertarians." [Carl

1571

Levy, Gramsci and the Anarchists, p. 135] By November 1919 the internal

1572

commissions of Turin were transformed into factory councils.

1573

1574

The movement in Turin is usually associated with the weekly L'Ordine

1575

Nuovo (The New Order), which first appeared on May 1, 1919. As Daniel

1576

Guerin summarises, it was "edited by a left socialist, Antonio Gramsci,

1577

assisted by a professor of philosophy at Turin University with

1578

anarchist ideas, writing under the pseudonym of Carlo Petri, and also

1579

of a whole nucleus of Turin libertarians. In the factories, the Ordine

1580

Nuovo group was supported by a number of people, especially the

1581

anarcho-syndicalist militants of the metal trades, Pietro Ferrero and

1582

Maurizio Garino. The manifesto of Ordine Nuovo was signed by socialists

1583

and libertarians together, agreeing to regard the factory councils as

1584

'organs suited to future communist management of both the individual

1585

factory and the whole society.'" [Anarchism, p. 109]

1586

1587

The developments in Turin should not be taken in isolation. All across

1588

Italy, workers and peasants were taking action. In late February 1920,

1589

a rash of factory occupations broke out in Liguria, Piedmont and

1590

Naples. In Liguria, the workers occupied the metal and shipbuilding

1591

plants in Sestri Ponente, Cornigliano and Campi after a breakdown of

1592

pay talks. For up to four days, under syndicalist leadership, they ran

1593

the plants through factory councils.

1594

1595

During this period the Italian Syndicalist Union (USI) grew in size to

1596

around 800 000 members and the influence of the Italian Anarchist Union

1597

(UAI) with its 20 000 members and daily paper (Umanita Nova) grew

1598

correspondingly. As the Welsh Marxist historian Gwyn A. Williams points

1599

out "Anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists were the most

1600

consistently and totally revolutionary group on the left . . . the most

1601

obvious feature of the history of syndicalism and anarchism in 1919-20:

1602

rapid and virtually continuous growth . . . The syndicalists above all

1603

captured militant working-class opinion which the socialist movement

1604

was utterly failing to capture." [Proletarian Order, pp. 194-195] In

1605

Turin, libertarians "worked within FIOM" and had been "heavily involved

1606

in the Ordine Nuovo campaign from the beginning." [Op. Cit., p. 195]

1607

Unsurprisingly, Ordone Nuovo was denounced as "syndicalist" by other

1608

socialists.

1609

1610

It was the anarchists and syndicalists who first raised the idea of

1611

occupying workplaces. Malatesta was discussing this idea in Umanita

1612

Nova in March, 1920. In his words, "General strikes of protest no

1613

longer upset anyone . . . One must seek something else. We put forward

1614

an idea: take-over of factories. . . the method certainly has a future,

1615

because it corresponds to the ultimate ends of the workers' movement

1616

and constitutes an exercise preparing one for the ultimate act of

1617

expropriation." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 134] In the

1618

same month, during "a strong syndicalist campaign to establish councils

1619

in Mila, Armando Borghi [anarchist secretary of the USI] called for

1620

mass factory occupations. In Turin, the re-election of workshop

1621

commissars was just ending in a two-week orgy of passionate discussion

1622

and workers caught the fever. [Factory Council] Commissars began to

1623

call for occupations." Indeed, "the council movement outside Turin was

1624

essentially anarcho-syndicalist." Unsurprisingly, the secretary of the

1625

syndicalist metal-workers "urged support for the Turin councils because

1626

they represented anti-bureaucratic direct action, aimed at control of

1627

the factory and could be the first cells of syndicalist industrial

1628

unions . . . The syndicalist congress voted to support the councils. .

1629

. . Malatesta . . . supported them as a form of direct action

1630

guaranteed to generate rebelliousness . . . Umanita Nova and Guerra di

1631

Classe [paper of the USI] became almost as committed to the councils as

1632

L'Ordine Nuovo and the Turin edition of Avanti." [Williams, Op. Cit.,

1633

p. 200, p. 193 and p. 196]

1634

1635

The upsurge in militancy soon provoked an employer counter-offensive.

1636

The bosses organisation denounced the factory councils and called for a

1637

mobilisation against them. Workers were rebelling and refusing to

1638

follow the bosses orders -- "indiscipline" was rising in the factories.

1639

They won state support for the enforcement of the existing industrial

1640

regulations. The national contract won by the FIOM in 1919 had provided

1641

that the internal commissions were banned from the shop floor and

1642

restricted to non-working hours. This meant that the activities of the

1643

shop stewards' movement in Turin -- such as stopping work to hold shop

1644

steward elections -- were in violation of the contract. The movement

1645

was essentially being maintained through mass insubordination. The

1646

bosses used this infringement of the agreed contract as the means

1647

combating the factory councils in Turin.

1648

1649

The showdown with the employers arrived in April, when a general

1650

assembly of shop stewards at Fiat called for sit-in strikes to protest

1651

the dismissal of several shop stewards. In response the employers

1652

declared a general lockout. The government supported the lockout with a

1653

mass show of force and troops occupied the factories and mounted

1654

machine guns posts at them. When the shop stewards movement decided to

1655

surrender on the immediate issues in dispute after two weeks on strike,

1656

the employers responded with demands that the shop stewards councils be

1657

limited to non-working hours, in accordance with the FIOM national

1658

contract, and that managerial control be re-imposed.

1659

1660

These demands were aimed at the heart of the factory council system and

1661

Turin labour movement responded with a massive general strike in

1662

defence of it. In Turin, the strike was total and it soon spread

1663

throughout the region of Piedmont and involved 500 000 workers at its

1664

height. The Turin strikers called for the strike to be extended

1665

nationally and, being mostly led by socialists, they turned to the CGL

1666

trade union and Socialist Party leaders, who rejected their call.

1667

1668

The only support for the Turin general strike came from unions that

1669

were mainly under anarcho-syndicalist influence, such as the

1670

independent railway and the maritime workers unions ("The syndicalists

1671

were the only ones to move."). The railway workers in Pisa and Florence

1672

refused to transport troops who were being sent to Turin. There were

1673

strikes all around Genoa, among dock workers and in workplaces where

1674

the USI was a major influence. So in spite of being "betrayed and

1675

abandoned by the whole socialist movement," the April movement "still

1676

found popular support" with "actions . . . either directly led or

1677

indirectly inspired by anarcho-syndicalists." In Turin itself, the

1678

anarchists and syndicalists were "threatening to cut the council

1679

movement out from under" Gramsci and the Ordine Nuovo group. [Williams,

1680

Op. Cit., p. 207, p. 193 and p. 194]

1681

1682

Eventually the CGL leadership settled the strike on terms that accepted

1683

the employers' main demand for limiting the shop stewards' councils to

1684

non-working hours. Though the councils were now much reduced in

1685

activity and shop floor presence, they would yet see a resurgence of

1686

their position during the September factory occupations.

1687

1688

The anarchists "accused the socialists of betrayal. They criticised

1689

what they believed was a false sense of discipline that had bound

1690

socialists to their own cowardly leadership. They contrasted the

1691

discipline that placed every movement under the 'calculations, fears,

1692

mistakes and possible betrayals of the leaders' to the other discipline

1693

of the workers of Sestri Ponente who struck in solidarity with Turin,

1694

the discipline of the railway workers who refused to transport security

1695

forces to Turin and the anarchists and members of the Unione Sindacale

1696

who forgot considerations of party and sect to put themselves at the

1697

disposition of the Torinesi." [Carl Levy, Op. Cit., p. 161] Sadly, this

1698

top-down "discipline" of the socialists and their unions would be

1699

repeated during the factory occupations, with terrible results.

1700

1701

In September, 1920, there were large-scale stay-in strikes in Italy in

1702

response to an owner wage cut and lockout. "Central to the climate of

1703

the crisis was the rise of the syndicalists." In mid-August, the USI

1704

metal-workers "called for both unions to occupy the factories" and

1705

called for "a preventive occupation" against lock-outs. The USI saw

1706

this as the "expropriation of the factories by the metal-workers"

1707

(which must "be defended by all necessary measures") and saw the need

1708

"to call the workers of other industries into battle." [Williams, Op.

1709

Cit., p. 236, pp. 238-9] Indeed, "[i]f the FIOM had not embraced the

1710

syndicalist idea of an occupation of factories to counter an employer's

1711

lockout, the USI may well have won significant support from the

1712

politically active working class of Turin." [Carl Levy, Op. Cit., p.

1713

129] These strikes began in the engineering factories and soon spread

1714

to railways, road transport, and other industries, with peasants

1715

seizing land. The strikers, however, did more than just occupy their

1716

workplaces, they placed them under workers' self-management. Soon over

1717

500 000 "strikers" were at work, producing for themselves. Errico

1718

Malatesta, who took part in these events, writes:

1719

1720

"The metal workers started the movement over wage rates. It was a

1721

strike of a new kind. Instead of abandoning the factories, the idea

1722

was to remain inside without working . . . Throughout Italy there

1723

was a revolutionary fervour among the workers and soon the demands

1724

changed their characters. Workers thought that the moment was ripe

1725

to take possession once [and] for all the means of production. They

1726

armed for defence . . . and began to organise production on their

1727

own . . . It was the right of property abolished in fact . . .; it

1728

was a new regime, a new form of social life that was being ushered

1729

in. And the government stood by because it felt impotent to offer

1730

opposition." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 134]

1731

1732

Daniel Guerin provides a good summary of the extent of the movement:

1733

1734

"The management of the factories . . . [was] conducted by technical

1735

and administrative workers' committees. Self-management went quite a

1736

long way: in the early period assistance was obtained from the

1737

banks, but when it was withdrawn the self-management system issued

1738

its own money to pay the workers' wages. Very strict self-discipline

1739

was required, the use of alcoholic beverages forbidden, and armed

1740

patrols were organised for self-defence. Very close solidarity was

1741

established between the factories under self-management. Ores and

1742

coal were put into a common pool, and shared out equitably."

1743

[Anarchism, p. 109]

1744

1745

Italy was "paralysed, with half a million workers occupying their

1746

factories and raising red and black flags over them." The movement

1747

spread throughout Italy, not only in the industrial heartland around

1748

Milan, Turin and Genoa, but also in Rome, Florence, Naples and Palermo.

1749

The "militants of the USI were certainly in the forefront of the

1750

movement," while Umanita Nova argued that "the movement is very serious

1751

and we must do everything we can to channel it towards a massive

1752

extension." The persistent call of the USI was for "an extension of the

1753

movement to the whole of industry to institute their 'expropriating

1754

general strike.'" [Williams, Op. Cit., p. 236 and pp. 243-4] Railway

1755

workers, influenced by the libertarians, refused to transport troops,

1756

workers went on strike against the orders of the reformist unions and

1757

peasants occupied the land. The anarchists whole-heartedly supported

1758

the movement, unsurprisingly as the "occupation of the factories and

1759

the land suited perfectly our programme of action." [Malatesta, Op.

1760

Cit., p. 135] Luigi Fabbri described the occupations as having

1761

"revealed a power in the proletariat of which it had been unaware

1762

hitherto." [quoted by Paolo Sprinao, The Occupation of the Factories,

1763

p. 134]

1764

1765

However, after four weeks of occupation, the workers decided to leave

1766

the factories. This was because of the actions of the socialist party

1767

and the reformist trade unions. They opposed the movement and

1768

negotiated with the state for a return to "normality" in exchange for a

1769

promise to extend workers' control legally, in association with the

1770

bosses. The question of revolution was decided by a vote of the CGL

1771

national council in Milan on April 10-11th, without consulting the

1772

syndicalist unions, after the Socialist Party leadership refused to

1773

decide one way or the other.

1774

1775

Needless to say, this promise of "workers' control" was not kept. The

1776

lack of independent inter-factory organisation made workers dependent

1777

on trade union bureaucrats for information on what was going on in

1778

other cities, and they used that power to isolate factories, cities,

1779

and factories from each other. This lead to a return to work, "in spite

1780

of the opposition of individual anarchists dispersed among the

1781

factories." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 136] The local syndicalist union

1782

confederations could not provide the necessary framework for a fully

1783

co-ordinated occupation movement as the reformist unions refused to

1784

work with them; and although the anarchists were a large minority, they

1785

were still a minority:

1786

1787

"At the 'interproletarian' convention held on 12 September (in which

1788

the Unione Anarchia, the railwaymen's and maritime workers union

1789

participated) the syndicalist union decided that 'we cannot do it

1790

ourselves' without the socialist party and the CGL, protested

1791

against the 'counter-revolutionary vote' of Milan, declared it

1792

minoritarian, arbitrary and null, and ended by launching new, vague,

1793

but ardent calls to action." [Paolo Spriano, Op. Cit., p. 94]

1794

1795

Malatesta addressed the workers of one of the factories at Milan. He

1796

argued that "[t]hose who celebrate the agreement signed at Rome

1797

[between the Confederazione and the capitalists] as a great victory of

1798

yours are deceiving you. The victory in reality belongs to Giolitti, to

1799

the government and the bourgeoisie who are saved from the precipice

1800

over which they were hanging." During the occupation the "bourgeoisie

1801

trembled, the government was powerless to face the situation."

1802

Therefore:

1803

1804

"To speak of victory when the Roman agreement throws you back under

1805

bourgeois exploitation which you could have got rid of is a lie. If

1806

you give up the factories, do this with the conviction [of] hav[ing]

1807

lost a great battle and with the firm intention to resume the

1808

struggle on the first occasion and to carry it on in a thorough way.

1809

. . Nothing is lost if you have no illusion [about] the deceiving

1810

character of the victory. The famous decree on the control of

1811

factories is a mockery . . . because it tends to harmonise your

1812

interests and those of the bourgeois which is like harmonising the

1813

interests of the wolf and the sheep. Don't believe those of your

1814

leaders who make fools of you by adjourning the revolution from day

1815

to day. You yourselves must make the revolution when an occasion

1816

will offer itself, without waiting for orders which never come, or

1817

which come only to enjoin you to abandon action. Have confidence in

1818

yourselves, have faith in your future and you will win." [quoted by

1819

Max Nettlau, Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist]

1820

1821

Malatesta was proven correct. With the end of the occupations, the only

1822

victors were the bourgeoisie and the government. Soon the workers would

1823

face Fascism, but first, in October 1920, "after the factories were

1824

evacuated," the government (obviously knowing who the real threat was)

1825

"arrested the entire leadership of the USI and UAI. The socialists did

1826

not respond" and "more-or-less ignored the persecution of the

1827

libertarians until the spring of 1921 when the aged Malatesta and other

1828

imprisoned anarchists mounted a hunger strike from their cells in

1829

Milan." [Carl Levy, Op. Cit., pp. 221-2] They were acquitted after a

1830

four day trial.

1831

1832

The events of 1920 show four things. Firstly, that workers can manage

1833

their own workplaces successfully by themselves, without bosses.

1834

Secondly, on the need for anarchists to be involved in the labour

1835

movement. Without the support of the USI, the Turin movement would have

1836

been even more isolated than it was. Thirdly, anarchists need to be

1837

organised to influence the class struggle. The growth of the UAI and

1838

USI in terms of both influence and size indicates the importance of

1839

this. Without the anarchists and syndicalists raising the idea of

1840

factory occupations and supporting the movement, it is doubtful that it

1841

would have been as successful and widespread as it was. Lastly, that

1842

socialist organisations, structured in a hierarchical fashion, do not

1843

produce a revolutionary membership. By continually looking to leaders,

1844

the movement was crippled and could not develop to its full potential.

1845

1846

This period of Italian history explains the growth of Fascism in Italy.

1847

As Tobias Abse points out, "the rise of fascism in Italy cannot be

1848

detached from the events of the biennio rosso, the two red years of

1849

1919 and 1920, that preceded it. Fascism was a preventive

1850

counter-revolution . . . launched as a result of the failed revolution"

1851

["The Rise of Fascism in an Industrial City", pp. 52-81, Rethinking

1852

Italian Fascism, David Forgacs (ed.), p. 54] The term "preventive

1853

counter-revolution" was originally coined by the leading anarchist

1854

Luigi Fabbri, who correctly described fascism as "the organisation and

1855

agent of the violent armed defence of the ruling class against the

1856

proletariat, which, to their mind, has become unduly demanding, united

1857

and intrusive." ["Fascism: The Preventive Counter-Revolution", pp.

1858

408-416, Anarchism, Robert Graham (ed.), p. 410 and p. 409]

1859

1860

The rise of fascism confirmed Malatesta's warning at the time of the

1861

factory occupations: "If we do not carry on to the end, we will pay

1862

with tears of blood for the fear we now instil in the bourgeoisie."

1863

[quoted by Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., p. 66] The capitalists and rich

1864

landowners backed the fascists in order to teach the working class

1865

their place, aided by the state. They ensured "that it was given every

1866

assistance in terms of funding and arms, turning a blind eye to its

1867

breaches of the law and, where necessary, covering its back through

1868

intervention by armed forces which, on the pretext of restoring order,

1869

would rush to the aid of the fascists wherever the latter were

1870

beginning to take a beating instead of doling one out." [Fabbri, Op.

1871

Cit., p. 411] To quote Tobias Abse:

1872

1873

"The aims of the Fascists and their backers amongst the

1874

industrialists and agrarians in 1921-22 were simple: to break the

1875

power of the organised workers and peasants as completely as

1876

possible, to wipe out, with the bullet and the club, not only the

1877

gains of the biennio rosso, but everything that the lower classes

1878

had gained . . . between the turn of the century and the outbreak of

1879

the First World War." [Op. Cit., p. 54]

1880

1881

The fascist squads attacked and destroyed anarchist and socialist

1882

meeting places, social centres, radical presses and Camera del Lavoro

1883

(local trade union councils). However, even in the dark days of fascist

1884

terror, the anarchists resisted the forces of totalitarianism. "It is

1885

no coincidence that the strongest working-class resistance to Fascism

1886

was in . . . towns or cities in which there was quite a strong

1887

anarchist, syndicalist or anarcho-syndicalist tradition." [Tobias Abse,

1888

Op. Cit., p. 56]

1889

1890

The anarchists participated in, and often organised sections of, the

1891

Arditi del Popolo, a working-class organisation devoted to the

1892

self-defence of workers' interests. The Arditi del Popolo organised and

1893

encouraged working-class resistance to fascist squads, often defeating

1894

larger fascist forces (for example, "the total humiliation of thousands

1895

of Italo Balbo's squadristi by a couple of hundred Arditi del Popolo

1896

backed by the inhabitants of the working class districts" in the

1897

anarchist stronghold of Parma in August 1922 [Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., p.

1898

56]).

1899

1900

The Arditi del Popolo was the closest Italy got to the idea of a

1901

united, revolutionary working-class front against fascism, as had been

1902

suggested by Malatesta and the UAI. This movement "developed along

1903

anti-bourgeois and anti-fascist lines, and was marked by the

1904

independence of its local sections." [Red Years, Black Years: Anarchist

1905

Resistance to Fascism in Italy, p. 2] Rather than being just an

1906

"anti-fascist" organisation, the Arditi "were not a movement in defence

1907

of 'democracy' in the abstract, but an essentially working-class

1908

organisation devoted to the defence of the interests of industrial

1909

workers, the dockers and large numbers of artisans and craftsmen."

1910

[Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., p. 75] Unsurprisingly, the Arditi del Popolo

1911

"appear to have been strongest and most successful in areas where

1912

traditional working-class political culture was less exclusively

1913

socialist and had strong anarchist or syndicalist traditions, for

1914

example, Bari, Livorno, Parma and Rome." [Antonio Sonnessa, "Working

1915

Class Defence Organisation, Anti-Fascist Resistance and the Arditi del

1916

Popolo in Turin, 1919-22," pp. 183-218, European History Quarterly,

1917

vol. 33, no. 2, p. 184]

1918

1919

However, both the socialist and communist parties withdrew from the

1920

organisation. The socialists signed a "Pact of Pacification" with the

1921

Fascists in August 1921. The communists "preferred to withdraw their

1922

members from the Arditi del Popolo rather than let them work with the

1923

anarchists." [Red Years, Black Years, p. 17] Indeed, "[o]n the same day

1924

as the Pact was signed, Ordine Nuovo published a PCd'I [Communist Party

1925

of Italy] communication warning communists against involvement" in the

1926

Arditi del Popolo. Four days later, the Communist leadership

1927

"officially abandoned the movement. Severe disciplinary measures were

1928

threatened against those communists who continued to participate in, or

1929

liase with," the organisation. Thus by "the end of the first week of

1930

August 1921 the PSI, CGL and the PCd'I had officially denounced" the

1931

organisation. "Only the anarchist leaders, if not always sympathetic to

1932

the programme of the [Arditi del Popolo], did not abandon the

1933

movement." Indeed, Umanita Nova "strongly supported" it "on the grounds

1934

it represented a popular expression of anti-fascist resistance and in

1935

defence of freedom to organise." [Antonio Sonnessa, Op. Cit., p. 195

1936

and p. 194]

1937

1938

However, in spite of the decisions by their leaders, many rank and file

1939

socialists and communists took part in the movement. The latter took

1940

part in open "defiance of the PCd'I leadership's growing abandonment"

1941

of it. In Turin, for example, communists who took part in the Arditi

1942

del Polopo did so "less as communists and more as part of a wider,

1943

working-class self-identification . . . This dynamic was re-enforced by

1944

an important socialist and anarchist presence" there. The failure of

1945

the Communist leadership to support the movement shows the bankruptcy

1946

of Bolshevik organisational forms which were unresponsive to the needs

1947

of the popular movement. Indeed, these events show the "libertarian

1948

custom of autonomy from, and resistance to, authority was also operated

1949

against the leaders of the workers' movement, particularly when they

1950

were held to have misunderstood the situation at grass roots level."

1951

[Sonnessa, Op. Cit., p. 200, p. 198 and p. 193]

1952

1953

Thus the Communist Party failed to support the popular resistance to

1954

fascism. The Communist leader Antonio Gramsci explained why, arguing

1955

that "the party leadership's attitude on the question of the Arditi del

1956

Popolo . . . corresponded to a need to prevent the party members from

1957

being controlled by a leadership that was not the party's leadership."

1958

Gramsci added that this policy "served to disqualify a mass movement

1959

which had started from below and which could instead have been

1960

exploited by us politically." [Selections from Political Writings

1961

(1921-1926), p. 333] While being less sectarian towards the Arditi del

1962

Popolo than other Communist leaders, "[i]n common with all communist

1963

leaders, Gramsci awaited the formation of the PCd'I-led military

1964

squads." [Sonnessa, Op. Cit., p. 196] In other words, the struggle

1965

against fascism was seen by the Communist leadership as a means of

1966

gaining more members and, when the opposite was a possibility, they

1967

preferred defeat and fascism rather than risk their followers becoming

1968

influenced by anarchism.

1969

1970

As Abse notes, "it was the withdrawal of support by the Socialist and

1971

Communist parties at the national level that crippled" the Arditi. [Op.

1972

Cit., p. 74] Thus "social reformist defeatism and communist

1973

sectarianism made impossible an armed opposition that was widespread

1974

and therefore effective; and the isolated instances of popular

1975

resistance were unable to unite in a successful strategy." And fascism

1976

could have been defeated: "Insurrections at Sarzanna, in July 1921, and

1977

at Parma, in August 1922, are examples of the correctness of the

1978

policies which the anarchists urged in action and propaganda." [Red

1979

Years, Black Years, p. 3 and p. 2] Historian Tobias Abse confirms this

1980

analysis, arguing that "[w]hat happened in Parma in August 1922 . . .

1981

could have happened elsewhere, if only the leadership of the Socialist

1982

and Communist parties thrown their weight behind the call of the

1983

anarchist Malatesta for a united revolutionary front against Fascism."

1984

[Op. Cit., p. 56]

1985

1986

In the end, fascist violence was successful and capitalist power

1987

maintained:

1988

1989

"The anarchists' will and courage were not enough to counter the

1990

fascist gangs, powerfully aided with material and arms, backed by

1991

the repressive organs of the state. Anarchists and

1992

anarcho-syndicalists were decisive in some areas and in some

1993

industries, but only a similar choice of direct action on the parts

1994

of the Socialist Party and the General Confederation of Labour [the

1995

reformist trade union] could have halted fascism." [Red Years, Black

1996

Years, pp. 1-2]

1997

1998

After helping to defeat the revolution, the Marxists helped ensure the

1999

victory of fascism.

2000

2001

Even after the fascist state was created, anarchists resisted both

2002

inside and outside Italy. In America, for example, Italian anarchists

2003

played a major role in fighting fascist influence in their communities,

2004

none more so that Carlo Tresca, most famous for his role in the 1912

2005

IWW Lawrence strike, who "in the 1920s had no peer among anti-Fascist

2006

leaders, a distinction recognised by Mussolini's political police in

2007

Rome." [Nunzio Pernicone, Carlo Tresca: Portrait of a Rebel, p. 4] Many

2008

Italians, both anarchist and non-anarchist, travelled to Spain to

2009

resist Franco in 1936 (see Umberto Marzochhi's Remembering Spain:

2010

Italian Anarchist Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War for details).

2011

During the Second World War, anarchists played a major part in the

2012

Italian Partisan movement. It was the fact that the anti-fascist

2013

movement was dominated by anti-capitalist elements that led the USA and

2014

the UK to place known fascists in governmental positions in the places

2015

they "liberated" (often where the town had already been taken by the

2016

Partisans, resulting in the Allied troops "liberating" the town from

2017

its own inhabitants!).

2018

2019

Given this history of resisting fascism in Italy, it is surprising that

2020

some claim Italian fascism was a product or form of syndicalism. This

2021

is even claimed by some anarchists. According to Bob Black the "Italian

2022

syndicalists mostly went over to Fascism" and references David D.

2023

Roberts 1979 study The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism to

2024

support his claim. [Anarchy after Leftism, p. 64] Peter Sabatini in a

2025

review in Social Anarchism makes a similar statement, saying that

2026

syndicalism's "ultimate failure" was "its transformation into a vehicle

2027

of fascism." [Social Anarchism, no. 23, p. 99] What is the truth behind

2028

these claims?

2029

2030

Looking at Black's reference we discover that, in fact, most of the

2031

Italian syndicalists did not go over to fascism, if by syndicalists we

2032

mean members of the USI (the Italian Syndicalist Union). Roberts states

2033

that:

2034

2035

"The vast majority of the organised workers failed to respond to the

2036

syndicalists' appeals and continued to oppose [Italian] intervention

2037

[in the First World War], shunning what seemed to be a futile

2038

capitalist war. The syndicalists failed to convince even a majority

2039

within the USI . . . the majority opted for the neutralism of

2040

Armando Borghi, leader of the anarchists within the USI. Schism

2041

followed as De Ambris led the interventionist minority out of the

2042

confederation." [The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism, p.

2043

113]

2044

2045

However, if we take "syndicalist" to mean some of the intellectuals and

2046

"leaders" of the pre-war movement, it was a case that the "leading

2047

syndicalists came out for intervention quickly and almost unanimously"

2048

[Roberts, Op. Cit., p. 106] after the First World War started. Many of

2049

these pro-war "leading syndicalists" did become fascists. However, to

2050

concentrate on a handful of "leaders" (which the majority did not even

2051

follow!) and state that this shows that the "Italian syndicalists

2052

mostly went over to Fascism" staggers belief. What is even worse, as

2053

seen above, the Italian anarchists and syndicalists were the most

2054

dedicated and successful fighters against fascism. In effect, Black and

2055

Sabatini have slandered a whole movement.

2056

2057

What is also interesting is that these "leading syndicalists" were not

2058

anarchists and so not anarcho-syndicalists. As Roberts notes "[i]n

2059

Italy, the syndicalist doctrine was more clearly the product of a group

2060

of intellectuals, operating within the Socialist party and seeking an

2061

alternative to reformism." They "explicitly denounced anarchism" and

2062

"insisted on a variety of Marxist orthodoxy." The "syndicalists

2063

genuinely desired -- and tried -- to work within the Marxist

2064

tradition." [Op. Cit., p. 66, p. 72, p. 57 and p. 79] According to Carl

2065

Levy, in his account of Italian anarchism, "[u]nlike other syndicalist

2066

movements, the Italian variation coalesced inside a Second

2067

International party. Supporter were partially drawn from socialist

2068

intransigents . . . the southern syndicalist intellectuals pronounced

2069

republicanism . . . Another component . . . was the remnant of the

2070

Partito Operaio." ["Italian Anarchism: 1870-1926" in For Anarchism:

2071

History, Theory, and Practice, David Goodway (Ed.), p. 51]

2072

2073

In other words, the Italian syndicalists who turned to fascism were,

2074

firstly, a small minority of intellectuals who could not convince the

2075

majority within the syndicalist union to follow them, and, secondly,

2076

Marxists and republicans rather than anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists

2077

or even revolutionary syndicalists.

2078

2079

According to Carl Levy, Roberts' book "concentrates on the syndicalist

2080

intelligentsia" and that "some syndicalist intellectuals . . . helped

2081

generate, or sympathetically endorsed, the new Nationalist movement . .

2082

. which bore similarities to the populist and republican rhetoric of

2083

the southern syndicalist intellectuals." He argues that there "has been

2084

far too much emphasis on syndicalist intellectuals and national

2085

organisers" and that syndicalism "relied little on its national

2086

leadership for its long-term vitality." [Op. Cit., p. 77, p. 53 and p.

2087

51] If we do look at the membership of the USI, rather than finding a

2088

group which "mostly went over to fascism," we discover a group of

2089

people who fought fascism tooth and nail and were subject to extensive

2090

fascist violence.

2091

2092

To summarise, Italian Fascism had nothing to do with syndicalism and,

2093

as seen above, the USI fought the Fascists and was destroyed by them

2094

along with the UAI, Socialist Party and other radicals. That a handful

2095

of pre-war Marxist-syndicalists later became Fascists and called for a

2096

"National-Syndicalism" does not mean that syndicalism and fascism are

2097

related (any more than some anarchists later becoming Marxists makes

2098

anarchism "a vehicle" for Marxism!).

2099

2100

It is hardly surprising that anarchists were the most consistent and

2101

successful opponents of Fascism. The two movements could not be further

2102

apart, one standing for total statism in the service of capitalism

2103

while the other for a free, non-capitalist society. Neither is it

2104

surprising that when their privileges and power were in danger, the

2105

capitalists and the landowners turned to fascism to save them. This

2106

process is a common feature in history (to list just four examples,

2107

Italy, Germany, Spain and Chile).

2108

2109

A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution

2110

2111

As Noam Chomsky notes, "a good example of a really large-scale

2112

anarchist revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge -- is

2113

the Spanish revolution in 1936, in which over most of Republican Spain

2114

there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both

2115

industry and agriculture over substantial areas . . . And that again

2116

was, by both human measures and indeed anyone's economic measures,

2117

quite successful. That is, production continued effectively; workers in

2118

farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs

2119

without coercion from above, contrary to what lots of socialists,

2120

communists, liberals and other wanted to believe." The revolution of

2121

1936 was "based on three generations of experiment and thought and work

2122

which extended anarchist ideas to very large parts of the population."

2123

[Radical Priorities, p. 212]

2124

2125

Due to this anarchist organising and agitation, Spain in the 1930's had

2126

the largest anarchist movement in the world. At the start of the

2127

Spanish "Civil" war, over one and one half million workers and peasants

2128

were members of the CNT (the National Confederation of Labour), an

2129

anarcho-syndicalist union federation, and 30,000 were members of the

2130

FAI (the Anarchist Federation of Iberia). The total population of Spain

2131

at this time was 24 million.

2132

2133

The social revolution which met the Fascist coup on July 18th, 1936, is

2134

the greatest experiment in libertarian socialism to date. Here the last

2135

mass syndicalist union, the CNT, not only held off the fascist rising

2136

but encouraged the widespread take-over of land and factories. Over

2137

seven million people, including about two million CNT members, put

2138

self-management into practise in the most difficult of circumstances

2139

and actually improved both working conditions and output.

2140

2141

In the heady days after the 19th of July, the initiative and power

2142

truly rested in the hands of the rank-and-file members of the CNT and

2143

FAI. It was ordinary people, undoubtedly under the influence of Faistas

2144

(members of the FAI) and CNT militants, who, after defeating the

2145

fascist uprising, got production, distribution and consumption started

2146

again (under more egalitarian arrangements, of course), as well as

2147

organising and volunteering (in their tens of thousands) to join the

2148

militias, which were to be sent to free those parts of Spain that were

2149

under Franco. In every possible way the working class of Spain were

2150

creating by their own actions a new world based on their own ideas of

2151

social justice and freedom -- ideas inspired, of course, by anarchism

2152

and anarchosyndicalism.

2153

2154

George Orwell's eye-witness account of revolutionary Barcelona in late

2155

December, 1936, gives a vivid picture of the social transformation that

2156

had begun:

2157

2158

"The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the

2159

revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there

2160

since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January

2161

that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight

2162

from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and

2163

overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town

2164

where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every

2165

building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped

2166

with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists;

2167

every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the

2168

initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been

2169

gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being

2170

systematically demolished by gangs of workman. Every shop and cafe

2171

had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the

2172

bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and

2173

black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated

2174

you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had

2175

temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Se�or' or 'Don' or even

2176

'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said

2177

'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos dias'. . . Above all, there was a belief

2178

in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly

2179

emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were

2180

trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist

2181

machine." [Homage to Catalonia, pp. 2-3]

2182

2183

The full extent of this historic revolution cannot be covered here. It

2184

will be discussed in more detail in [12]Section I.8 of the FAQ. All

2185

that can be done is to highlight a few points of special interest in

2186

the hope that these will give some indication of the importance of

2187

these events and encourage people to find out more about it.

2188

2189

All industry in Catalonia was placed either under workers'

2190

self-management or workers' control (that is, either totally taking

2191

over all aspects of management, in the first case, or, in the second,

2192

controlling the old management). In some cases, whole town and regional

2193

economies were transformed into federations of collectives. The example

2194

of the Railway Federation (which was set up to manage the railway lines

2195

in Catalonia, Aragon and Valencia) can be given as a typical example.

2196

The base of the federation was the local assemblies:

2197

2198

"All the workers of each locality would meet twice a week to examine

2199

all that pertained to the work to be done... The local general

2200

assembly named a committee to manage the general activity in each

2201

station and its annexes. At [these] meetings, the decisions

2202

(direccion) of this committee, whose members continued to work [at

2203

their previous jobs], would be subjected to the approval or

2204

disapproval of the workers, after giving reports and answering

2205

questions."

2206

2207

The delegates on the committee could be removed by an assembly at any

2208

time and the highest co-ordinating body of the Railway Federation was

2209

the "Revolutionary Committee," whose members were elected by union

2210

assemblies in the various divisions. The control over the rail lines,

2211

according to Gaston Leval, "did not operate from above downwards, as in

2212

a statist and centralised system. The Revolutionary Committee had no

2213

such powers. . . The members of the. . . committee being content to

2214

supervise the general activity and to co-ordinate that of the different

2215

routes that made up the network." [Gaston Leval, Collectives in the

2216

Spanish Revolution, p. 255]

2217

2218

On the land, tens of thousands of peasants and rural day workers

2219

created voluntary, self-managed collectives. The quality of life

2220

improved as co-operation allowed the introduction of health care,

2221

education, machinery and investment in the social infrastructure. As

2222

well as increasing production, the collectives increased freedom. As

2223

one member puts it, "it was marvellous . . . to live in a collective, a

2224

free society where one could say what one thought, where if the village

2225

committee seemed unsatisfactory one could say. The committee took no

2226

big decisions without calling the whole village together in a general

2227

assembly. All this was wonderful." [Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p.

2228

360]

2229

2230

We discuss the revolution in more detail in [13]section I.8. For

2231

example, sections [14]I.8.3 and [15]I.8.4 discuss in more depth how the

2232

industrial collectives. The rural collectives are discussed in sections

2233

[16]I.8.5 and [17]I.8.6. We must stress that these sections are

2234

summaries of a vast social movement, and more information can be

2235

gathered from such works as Gaston Leval's Collectives in the Spanish

2236

Revolution, Sam Dolfgoff's The Anarchist Collectives, Jose Peirats' The

2237

CNT in the Spanish Revolution and a host of other anarchist accounts of

2238

the revolution.

2239

2240

On the social front, anarchist organisations created rational schools,

2241

a libertarian health service, social centres, and so on. The Mujeres

2242

Libres (free women) combated the traditional role of women in Spanish

2243

society, empowering thousands both inside and outside the anarchist

2244

movement (see The Free Women of Spain by Martha A. Ackelsberg for more

2245

information on this very important organisation). This activity on the

2246

social front only built on the work started long before the outbreak of

2247

the war; for example, the unions often funded rational schools, workers

2248

centres, and so on.

2249

2250

The voluntary militias that went to free the rest of Spain from Franco

2251

were organised on anarchist principles and included both men and women.

2252

There was no rank, no saluting and no officer class. Everybody was

2253

equal. George Orwell, a member of the POUM militia (the POUM was a

2254

dissident Marxist party, influenced by Leninism but not, as the

2255

Communists asserted, Trotskyist) makes this clear:

2256

2257

"The essential point of the [militia] system was the social equality

2258

between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the

2259

same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on

2260

terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general

2261

commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you

2262

could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate

2263

each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was understood

2264

that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood that when

2265

you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not as

2266

superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.s, but there was

2267

no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no

2268

heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the

2269

militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society.

2270

Of course there was not perfect equality, but there was a nearer

2271

approach to it than I had ever seen or that I would have though

2272

conceivable in time of war. . . " [Op. Cit., p. 26]

2273

2274

In Spain, however, as elsewhere, the anarchist movement was smashed

2275

between Stalinism (the Communist Party) on the one hand and Capitalism

2276

(Franco) on the other. Unfortunately, the anarchists placed

2277

anti-fascist unity before the revolution, thus helping their enemies to

2278

defeat both them and the revolution. Whether they were forced by

2279

circumstances into this position or could have avoided it is still

2280

being debated (see [18]section I.8.10 for a discussion of why the

2281

CNT-FAI collaborated and [19]section I.8.11 on why this decision was

2282

not a product of anarchist theory).

2283

2284

Orwell's account of his experiences in the militia's indicates why the

2285

Spanish Revolution is so important to anarchists:

2286

2287

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any

2288

size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief

2289

in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in

2290

Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not

2291

entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and

2292

mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality,

2293

and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in

2294

which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste

2295

of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere

2296

was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilised life

2297

-- snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. -- had

2298

simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class- division of society had

2299

disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the

2300

money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the

2301

peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

2302

. . One had been in a community where hope was more normal than

2303

apathy or cynicism, where the word 'comrade' stood for comradeship

2304

and not, as in most countries, for humbug. One had breathed the air

2305

of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that

2306

Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the

2307

world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are

2308

busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned

2309

state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately

2310

there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this.

2311

The thing that attracts ordinary men to Socialism and makes them

2312

willing to risk their skins for it, the 'mystique' of Socialism, is

2313

the idea of equality; to the vast majority of people Socialism means

2314

a classless society, or it means nothing at all . . . In that

2315

community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage

2316

of everything but no boot-licking, one got, perhaps, a crude

2317

forecast of what the opening stages of Socialism might be like. And,

2318

after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. . ."

2319

[Op. Cit., pp. 83-84]

2320

2321

For more information on the Spanish Revolution, the following books are

2322

recommended: Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by Vernon Richards;

2323

Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution and The CNT in the Spanish

2324

Revolution by Jose Peirats; Free Women of Spain by Martha A.

2325

Ackelsberg; The Anarchist Collectives edited by Sam Dolgoff;

2326

"Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" by Noam Chomsky (in The Chomsky

2327

Reader); The Anarchists of Casas Viejas by Jerome R. Mintz; and Homage

2328

to Catalonia by George Orwell.

2329

2330

A.5.7 The May-June Revolt in France, 1968

2331

2332

The May-June events in France placed anarchism back on the radical

2333

landscape after a period in which many people had written the movement

2334

off as dead. This revolt of ten million people grew from humble

2335

beginnings. Expelled by the university authorities of Nanterre in Paris

2336

for anti-Vietnam War activity, a group of anarchists (including Daniel

2337

Cohn-Bendit) promptly called a protest demonstration. The arrival of 80

2338

police enraged many students, who quit their studies to join the battle

2339

and drive the police from the university.

2340

2341

Inspired by this support, the anarchists seized the administration

2342

building and held a mass debate. The occupation spread, Nanterre was

2343

surrounded by police, and the authorities closed the university down.

2344

The next day, the Nanterre students gathered at the Sorbonne University

2345

in the centre of Paris. Continual police pressure and the arrest of

2346

over 500 people caused anger to erupt into five hours of street

2347

fighting. The police even attacked passers-by with clubs and tear gas.

2348

2349

A total ban on demonstrations and the closure of the Sorbonne brought

2350

thousands of students out onto the streets. Increasing police violence

2351

provoked the building of the first barricades. Jean Jacques Lebel, a

2352

reporter, wrote that by 1 a.m., "[l]iterally thousands helped build

2353

barricades. . . women, workers, bystanders, people in pyjamas, human

2354

chains to carry rocks, wood, iron." An entire night of fighting left

2355

350 police injured. On May 7th, a 50,000-strong protest march against

2356

the police was transformed into a day-long battle through the narrow

2357

streets of the Latin Quarter. Police tear gas was answered by molotov

2358

cocktails and the chant "Long Live the Paris Commune!"

2359

2360

By May 10th, continuing massive demonstrations forced the Education

2361

Minister to start negotiations. But in the streets, 60 barricades had

2362

appeared and young workers were joining the students. The trade unions

2363

condemned the police violence. Huge demonstrations throughout France

2364

culminated on May 13th with one million people on the streets of Paris.

2365

2366

Faced with this massive protest, the police left the Latin Quarter.

2367

Students seized the Sorbonne and created a mass assembly to spread the

2368

struggle. Occupations soon spread to every French University. From the

2369

Sorbonne came a flood of propaganda, leaflets, proclamations,

2370

telegrams, and posters. Slogans such as "Everything is Possible," "Be

2371

Realistic, Demand the Impossible," "Life without Dead Times," and "It

2372

is Forbidden to Forbid" plastered the walls. "All Power to the

2373

Imagination" was on everyone's lips. As Murray Bookchin pointed out,

2374

"the motive forces of revolution today. . . are not simply scarcity and

2375

material need, but also quality of everyday life . . . the attempt to

2376

gain control of one's own destiny." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 166]

2377

2378

Many of the most famous slogans of those days originated from the

2379

Situationists. The Situationist International had been formed in 1957

2380

by a small group of dissident radicals and artists. They had developed

2381

a highly sophisticated (if jargon riddled) and coherent analysis of

2382

modern capitalist society and how to supersede it with a new, freer

2383

one. Modern life, they argued, was mere survival rather than living,

2384

dominated by the economy of consumption in which everyone, everything,

2385

every emotion and relationship becomes a commodity. People were no

2386

longer simply alienated producers, they were also alienated consumers.

2387

They defined this kind of society as the "Spectacle." Life itself had

2388

been stolen and so revolution meant recreating life. The area of

2389

revolutionary change was no longer just the workplace, but in everyday

2390

existence:

2391

2392

"People who talk about revolution and class struggle without

2393

referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is

2394

subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of

2395

constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth." [quoted by

2396

Clifford Harper, Anarchy: A Graphic Guide, p. 153]

2397

2398

Like many other groups whose politics influenced the Paris events, the

2399

situationists argued that "the workers' councils are the only answer.

2400

Every other form of revolutionary struggle has ended up with the very

2401

opposite of what it was originally looking for." [quoted by Clifford

2402

Harper, Op. Cit., p. 149] These councils would be self-managed and not

2403

be the means by which a "revolutionary" party would take power. Like

2404

the anarchists of Noire et Rouge and the libertarian socialists of

2405

Socialisme ou Barbarie, their support for a self-managed revolution

2406

from below had a massive influence in the May events and the ideas that

2407

inspired it.

2408

2409

On May 14th, the Sud-Aviation workers locked the management in its

2410

offices and occupied their factory. They were followed by the

2411

Cleon-Renault, Lockhead-Beauvais and Mucel-Orleans factories the next

2412

day. That night the National Theatre in Paris was seized to become a

2413

permanent assembly for mass debate. Next, France's largest factory,

2414

Renault-Billancourt, was occupied. Often the decision to go on

2415

indefinite strike was taken by the workers without consulting union

2416

officials. By May 17th, a hundred Paris Factories were in the hands of

2417

their workers. The weekend of the 19th of May saw 122 factories

2418

occupied. By May 20th, the strike and occupations were general and

2419

involved six million people. Print workers said they did not wish to

2420

leave a monopoly of media coverage to TV and radio, and agreed to print

2421

newspapers as long as the press "carries out with objectivity the role

2422

of providing information which is its duty." In some cases

2423

print-workers insisted on changes in headlines or articles before they

2424

would print the paper. This happened mostly with the right-wing papers

2425

such as 'Le Figaro' or 'La Nation'.

2426

2427

With the Renault occupation, the Sorbonne occupiers immediately

2428

prepared to join the Renault strikers, and led by anarchist black and

2429

red banners, 4,000 students headed for the occupied factory. The state,

2430

bosses, unions and Communist Party were now faced with their greatest

2431

nightmare -- a worker-student alliance. Ten thousand police reservists

2432

were called up and frantic union officials locked the factory gates.

2433

The Communist Party urged their members to crush the revolt. They

2434

united with the government and bosses to craft a series of reforms, but

2435

once they turned to the factories they were jeered out of them by the

2436

workers.

2437

2438

The struggle itself and the activity to spread it was organised by

2439

self-governing mass assemblies and co-ordinated by action committees.

2440

The strikes were often run by assemblies as well. As Murray Bookchin

2441

argues, the "hope [of the revolt] lay in the extension of

2442

self-management in all its forms -- the general assemblies and their

2443

administrative forms, the action committees, the factory strike

2444

committees -- to all areas of the economy, indeed to all areas of life

2445

itself." Within the assemblies, "a fever of life gripped millions, a

2446

rewaking of senses that people never thought they possessed." [Op.

2447

Cit., p. 168 and p. 167] It was not a workers' strike or a student

2448

strike. It was a peoples' strike that cut across almost all class

2449

lines.

2450

2451

On May 24th, anarchists organised a demonstration. Thirty thousand

2452

marched towards the Palace de la Bastille. The police had the

2453

Ministries protected, using the usual devices of tear gas and batons,

2454

but the Bourse (Stock Exchange) was left unprotected and a number of

2455

demonstrators set fire to it.

2456

2457

It was at this stage that some left-wing groups lost their nerve. The

2458

Trotskyist JCR turned people back into the Latin Quarter. Other groups

2459

such as UNEF and Parti Socialiste Unife (United Socialist Party)

2460

blocked the taking of the Ministries of Finance and Justice.

2461

Cohn-Bendit said of this incident "As for us, we failed to realise how

2462

easy it would have been to sweep all these nobodies away. . . .It is

2463

now clear that if, on 25 May, Paris had woken to find the most

2464

important Ministries occupied, Gaullism would have caved in at once. .

2465

. . " Cohn-Bendit was forced into exile later that very night.

2466

2467

As the street demonstrations grew and occupations continued, the state

2468

prepared to use overwhelming means to stop the revolt. Secretly, top

2469

generals readied 20,000 loyal troops for use on Paris. Police occupied

2470

communications centres like TV stations and Post Offices. By Monday,

2471

May 27th, the Government had guaranteed an increase of 35% in the

2472

industrial minimum wage and an all round-wage increase of 10%. The

2473

leaders of the CGT organised a march of 500,000 workers through the

2474

streets of Paris two days later. Paris was covered in posters calling

2475

for a "Government of the People." Unfortunately the majority still

2476

thought in terms of changing their rulers rather than taking control

2477

for themselves.

2478

2479

By June 5th most of the strikes were over and an air of what passes for

2480

normality within capitalism had rolled back over France. Any strikes

2481

which continued after this date were crushed in a military-style

2482

operation using armoured vehicles and guns. On June 7th, they made an

2483

assault on the Flins steelworks which started a four-day running battle

2484

which left one worker dead. Three days later, Renault strikers were

2485

gunned down by police, killing two. In isolation, those pockets of

2486

militancy stood no chance. On June 12th, demonstrations were banned,

2487

radical groups outlawed, and their members arrested. Under attack from

2488

all sides, with escalating state violence and trade union sell-outs,

2489

the General Strike and occupations crumbled.

2490

2491

So why did this revolt fail? Certainly not because "vanguard" Bolshevik

2492

parties were missing. It was infested with them. Fortunately, the

2493

traditional authoritarian left sects were isolated and outraged. Those

2494

involved in the revolt did not require a vanguard to tell them what to

2495

do, and the "workers' vanguards" frantically ran after the movement

2496

trying to catch up with it and control it.

2497

2498

No, it was the lack of independent, self-managed confederal

2499

organisations to co-ordinate struggle which resulted in occupations

2500

being isolated from each other. So divided, they fell. In addition,

2501

Murray Bookchin argues that "an awareness among the workers that the

2502

factories had to be worked, not merely occupied or struck," was

2503

missing. [Op. Cit., p. 182]

2504

2505

This awareness would have been encouraged by the existence of a strong

2506

anarchist movement before the revolt. The anti-authoritarian left,

2507

though very active, was too weak among striking workers, and so the

2508

idea of self-managed organisations and workers self-management was not

2509

widespread. However, the May-June revolt shows that events can change

2510

very rapidly. "Under the influence of the students," noted libertarian

2511

socialist Maurice Brinton, "thousands began to query the whole

2512

principle of hierarchy . . . Within a matter of days the tremendous

2513

creative potentialities of the people suddenly erupted. The boldest and

2514

realistic ideas -- and they are usually the same -- were advocated,

2515

argued, applied. Language, rendered stale by decades of bureaucratic

2516

mumbo-jumbo, eviscerated by those who manipulate it for advertising

2517

purposes, reappeared as something new and fresh. People re-appropriated

2518

it in all its fullness. Magnificently apposite and poetic slogans

2519

emerged from the anonymous crowd." ["Paris: May 1968", For Workers'

2520

Power, p. 253] The working class, fused by the energy and bravado of

2521

the students, raised demands that could not be catered for within the

2522

confines of the existing system. The General Strike displays with

2523

beautiful clarity the potential power that lies in the hands of the

2524

working class. The mass assemblies and occupations give an excellent,

2525

if short-lived, example of anarchy in action and how anarchist ideas

2526

can quickly spread and be applied in practice.

2527

2528

For more details of these events, see participants Daniel and Gabriel

2529

Cohn-Bendit's Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing Alternative or Maurice

2530

Brinton's eye-witness account "Paris: may 1968" (in his For Workers'

2531

Power). Beneath the Paving Stones by edited Dark Star is a good

2532

anthology of situationist works relating to Paris 68 (it also contains

2533

Brinton's essay).

2534

2535

References

2536

2537

1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ7.html

2538

2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca55

2539

3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca56

2540

4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca218

2541

5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca52

2542

6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech28

2543

7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj39

2544

8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secHcon.html

2545

9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append42.html

2546

10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append46.html

2547

11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append4.html

2548

12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html

2549

13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html

2550

14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html#seci83

2551

15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html#seci84

2552

16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html#seci85

2553

17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html#seci86

2554

18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html#seci810

2555

19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html#seci811