       H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?

   Many people involved in politics will soon discover that Marxist groups
   (particularly Leninist ones) organise "debates"
   about anarchism. These meetings are usually entitled "Marxism and
   Anarchism" and are usually organised after anarchists have been active
   in the area or have made the headlines somewhere.

   These meetings, contrary to common sense, are usually not a debate as
   (almost always) no anarchists are invited to argue the anarchist
   viewpoint and, therefore, they present a one-sided account of "Marxism
   and Anarchism" in a manner which benefits the organisers. Usually, the
   format is a speaker distorting anarchist ideas and history for a long
   period of time (both absolutely in terms of the length of the meeting
   and relatively in terms of the boredom inflicted on the unfortunate
   attendees). It will soon become obvious to those attending that any
   such meeting is little more than an unprincipled attack on anarchism
   with little or no relationship to what anarchism is actually about.
   Those anarchists who attend such meetings usually spend most of their
   allotted (usually short) speaking time refuting the nonsense that is
   undoubtedly presented. Rather than a real discussion between the
   differences between anarchism and "Marxism" (i.e. Leninism), the
   meeting simply becomes one where anarchists correct the distortions and
   misrepresentations of the speaker in order to create the basis of a
   real debate. If the reader does not believe this summary we would
   encourage them to attend such a meeting and see for themselves.

   Needless to say, we cannot hope to reproduce the many distortions
   produced in such meetings. However, when anarchists do hit the
   headlines (such as in the 1990 poll tax riot in London and the
   anti-globalisation movement of the late 1990s and early 2000s), various
   Marxist papers will produce articles on "Anarchism" as well. Like the
   meetings, the articles are full of so many elementary errors that it
   takes a lot of effort to think they are the product of ignorance rather
   than a conscious desire to lie (the appendix [1]"Anarchism and Marxism"
   contains a few replies to such articles). In addition, many of the
   founding fathers of Marxism (and Leninism) also decided to attack
   anarchism in similar ways, so this activity does have a long tradition
   in Marxist circles (particularly in Leninist and Trotskyist ones).
   Sadly, Max Nettlau's comments on Marx and Engels are applicable to many
   of their followers today. He argued that they "acted with that shocking
   lack of honesty which was characteristic of all their polemics. They
   worked with inadequate documentation, which, according to their custom,
   they supplemented with arbitrary declarations and conclusions -
   accepted as truth by their followers although they were exposed as
   deplorable misrepresentations, errors and unscrupulous perversions of
   the truth." [A Short History of Anarchism, p. 132] As the reader will
   discover, this summary has not lost its relevance today. If you read
   Marxist "critiques" of anarchism you will soon discover the same
   repetition of "accepted" truths, the same inadequate documentation, the
   same arbitrary declarations and conclusions as well as an apparent
   total lack of familiarity with the source material they claim to be
   analysing.

   This section of the FAQ lists and refutes many of the most common
   distortions Marxists make with regards to anarchism. As will become
   clear, many of the most common Marxist attacks on anarchism have little
   or no basis in fact but have simply been repeated so often by Marxists
   that they have entered the ideology (the idea that anarchists think the
   capitalist class will just disappear being, probably, the most famous
   one).

   Moreover, Marxists make many major and minor distortions of anarchist
   theory in passing. For example, Eric Hobsbawm wrote of the "extremism
   of the anarchist rejection of state and organisation" while being well
   aware, as a leading Marxist historian, of numerous anarchist
   organisations. [Revolutionaries, p. 113] This kind of nonsense has a
   long history, with Engels asserting in his infamous diatribe "The
   Bakuninists at work" that Bakunin "[a]s early as September 1870 (in his
   Lettres a un francais [Letters to a Frenchman]) . . . had declared that
   the only way to drive the Prussians out of France by a revolutionary
   struggle was to do away with all forms of centralised leadership and
   leave each town, each village, each parish to wage war on its own." For
   Engels anarchist federalism "consisted precisely in the fact that each
   town acted on its own, declaring that the important thing was not
   co-operation with other towns but separation from them, this precluding
   any possibility of a combined attack." This meant "the fragmentation
   and isolation of the revolutionary forces which enabled the government
   troops to smash one revolt after the other." According to Engels, the
   anarchists "proclaimed [this] a principle of supreme revolutionary
   wisdom." [Collected Works, vol. 23, p. 592]

   In fact, the truth is totally different. Bakunin did, of course, reject
   "centralised leadership" as it would be "necessarily very
   circumscribed, very short-sighted, and its limited perception cannot,
   therefore, penetrate the depth and encompass the whole complex range of
   popular life." However, it is a falsehood to state that he denied the
   need for co-ordination of struggles and federal organisations from the
   bottom up. As he put it, the revolution must "foster the
   self-organisation of the masses into autonomous bodies, federated from
   the bottom upwards." With regards to the peasants, he thought they will
   "come to an understanding, and form some kind of organisation . . . to
   further their mutual interests . . . the necessity to defend their
   homes, their families, and their own lives against unforeseen attack .
   . . will undoubtedly soon compel them to contract new and mutually
   suitable arrangements." The peasants would be "freely organised from
   the bottom up." Rather than deny the need for co-ordination, Bakunin
   stressed it: "the peasants, like the industrial city workers, should
   unite by federating the fighting battalions, district by district,
   assuring a common co-ordinated defence against internal and external
   enemies." ["Letters to a Frenchman on the present crisis", Bakunin on
   Anarchism, p. 196, p. 206, p. 207 and p. 190] In this he repeated his
   earlier arguments concerning social revolution - arguments that Engels
   was well aware of.

   In other words, Engels deliberately misrepresented Bakunin's ideas
   while being an attack on federalism when, in fact, federalism was not
   actually implemented. It should also be mentioned that Engels opposed
   the Spanish workers rising in revolt in the first place. "A few years
   of peaceful bourgeois republic," he argued, "would prepare the ground
   in Spain for a proletarian revolution" and "instead of staging
   isolated, easily crushed rebellions," he hoped that the "Spanish
   workers will make use of the republic" with a "view to an approaching
   revolution." He ended by asking them not to give the bourgeois
   government "an excuse to suppress the revolutionary movement." [Op.
   Cit., pp. 420-1] In his post-revolt diatribe, Engels repeated this
   analysis and suggested that the "Bakuninists" should have simply stood
   for election:

     "At quiet times, when the proletariat knows beforehand that at best
     it can get only a few representatives to parliament and have no
     chance whatever of winning a parliamentary majority, the workers may
     sometimes be made to believe that it is a great revolutionary action
     to sit out the elections at home, and in general, not to attack the
     State in which they live and which oppresses them, but to attack the
     State as such which exists nowhere and which accordingly cannot
     defend itself." [Op. Cit., p. 583]

   For some reason, few Leninist quote these recommendations to the
   Spanish workers nor do they dwell on the reformist and bureaucratic
   nature of the Socialist party inspired by this advice. As we discuss in
   [2]section H.3.10, the notion that voting in elections was to "attack
   the State" fits in well with the concept that universal suffrage
   equalled the "political power" of the proletariat and the democratic
   republic was the "specific form" of its dictatorship. Again, for some
   strange reason, few Leninists mention that either.

   The distortions can be somewhat ironic, as can be seen when Trotsky
   asserted in 1937 that anarchists are "willing to replace Bakunin's
   patriarchal 'federation of free communes' by the more modern federation
   of free soviets." [Writings 1936-37, p. 487] It is hard to know where
   to start in this incredulous rewriting of history. Firstly, Bakunin's
   federation of free communes was, in fact, based on workers' councils
   ("soviets") - see [3]section I.2.3. As for the charge of supporting
   "patriarchal" communes, nothing could be further from the truth. In his
   discussion of the Russian peasant commune (the mir) Bakunin argued that
   "patriarchalism" was one of its "three dark features," indeed "the main
   historical evil . . . against which we are obliged to struggle with all
   our might." This "evil", he stressed, "has distorted the whole of
   Russian life" and the "despotism of the father" turned the family "into
   a school of triumphant force and tyranny, of daily domestic baseness
   and depravity." The "same patriarchal principle, the same vile
   despotism, and the same base obedience prevail within" the peasant
   commune. Any revolt against "the hated state power and bureaucratic
   arbitrariness . . . simultaneously becomes a revolt against the
   despotism of the commune." The "war against patriarchalism is now being
   waged in virtually every village and every family."[Statism and
   Anarchy, p. 206, pp. 209-10, p. 210 and p. 214]

   As can be seen Trotsky's summary of Bakunin's ideas is totally wrong.
   Not only did his ideas on the organisation of the free commune as a
   federation of workers' associations predate the soviets by decades, he
   also argued against patriarchal relationships and urged their
   destruction in the Russian peasant commune (and elsewhere). Indeed, if
   any one fits Trotsky's invention it is Marx, not Bakunin. After all,
   Marx came round (eventually) to Bakunin's position that the peasant
   commune could be the basis for Russia to jump straight to socialism
   (and so by-passing capitalism) but without Bakunin's critical analysis
   of that institution and its patriarchal and other "dark" features.
   Similarly, Marx never argued that the future socialist society would be
   based on workers' associations and their federation (i.e. workers'
   councils). His vision of revolution was formulated in typically
   bourgeois structures such as the Paris Commune's municipal council.

   We could go on, but space precludes discussing every example. Suffice
   to say, it is not wise to take any Marxist assertion of anarchist
   thought or history at face value. A common technique is to quote
   anarchist writers out of context or before they become anarchists. For
   example, Marxist Paul Thomas argues that Bakunin favoured "blind
   destructiveness" and yet quotes more from Bakunin's pre-anarchist works
   (as well as Russian nihilists) than Bakunin's anarchist works to prove
   his claim. Similarly, Thomas claims that Bakunin "defended the federes
   of the Paris Commune of 1871 on the grounds that they were strong
   enough to dispense with theory altogether," yet his supporting quote
   clearly does not, in fact, say this. [Karl Marx and the Anarchists, pp.
   288-90 and p. 285] What Bakunin was, in fact, arguing was simply that
   theory must progress from experience and that any attempt to impose a
   theory on society would be doomed to create a "Procrustean bed" as no
   government could "embrace the infinite multiplicity and diversity of
   the real aspirations, wishes and needs whose sum total constitutes the
   collective will of a people." He explicitly contrasted the Marxist
   system of "want[ing] to impose science upon the people" with the
   anarchist desire "to diffuse science and knowledge among the people, so
   that the various groups of human society, when convinced by propaganda,
   may organise and spontaneously combine into federations, in accordance
   with their natural tendencies and their real interests, but never
   according to a plan traced in advance and imposed upon the ignorant
   masses by a few 'superior' minds." [The Political Theory of Bakunin, p.
   300] A clear misreading of Bakunin's argument but one which fits nicely
   into Marxist preconceptions of Bakunin and anarchism in general.

   This tendency to quote out of context or from periods when anarchists
   were not anarchists probably explains why so many of these Marxist
   accounts of anarchism are completely lacking in references. Take, for
   example, the British SWP's Pat Stack who, in the face of stiff
   competition, wrote one of the most inaccurate diatribes against
   anarchism the world has had the misfortunate to see (namely "Anarchy in
   the UK?" [Socialist Review, no. 246]). There is not a single reference
   in the whole article, which is just as well, given the inaccuracies
   contained in it. Without references, the reader would not be able to
   discover for themselves the distortions and simple errors contained in
   it.

   For example, Stack asserts that Bakunin "claimed a purely 'instinctive
   socialism.'" However, the truth is different and this quote from
   Bakunin is one by him comparing himself and Marx in the 1840s! In fact,
   the anarchist Bakunin argued that "instinct as a weapon is not
   sufficient to safeguard the proletariat against the reactionary
   machinations of the privileged classes," as instinct "left to itself,
   and inasmuch as it has not been transformed into consciously reflected,
   clearly determined thought, lends itself easily to falsification,
   distortion and deceit." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 215]
   Bakunin saw the process of class struggle as the means of transforming
   instinct into conscious thought. As he put it, the "goal, then, is to
   make the worker fully aware of what he [or she] wants, to unjam within
   him [or her] a steam of thought corresponding to his [or her]
   instinct." This is done by "a single path, that of emancipation through
   practical action," by "workers' solidarity in their struggle against
   the bosses," of "collective struggle of the workers against the
   bosses." This would be complemented by socialist organisations
   "propagandis[ing] its principles." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 102, p. 103
   and p. 109] Clearly, Stack is totally distorting Bakunin's ideas on the
   subject.

   This technique of quoting Bakunin when he spoke about (or when he wrote
   in) his pre-anarchist days in the 1840s, i.e. nearly 20 years before he
   became an anarchist, or from Proudhon's non-anarchist and posthumously
   published work on property (in which Proudhon saw small-scale property
   as a bulwark against state tyranny) to attack anarchism is commonplace.
   So it is always wise to check the source material and any references
   (assuming that they are provided). Only by doing this can it be
   discovered whether a quote reflects the opinions of individuals when
   they were anarchists or whether they are referring to periods when they
   were no longer, or had not yet become, anarchists.

   Ultimately, though, these kinds of articles by Marxists simply show the
   ideological nature of their own politics and say far more about Marxism
   than anarchism. After all, if their politics were strong they would not
   need to distort anarchist ideas! In addition, these essays are usually
   marked by a lot of (usually inaccurate) attacks on the ideas (or
   personal failings) of individual anarchists (usually Proudhon and
   Bakunin and sometimes Kropotkin). No modern anarchist theorist is
   usually mentioned, never mind discussed. Obviously, for most Marxists,
   anarchists must repeat parrot-like the ideas of these "great men."
   However, while Marxists may do this, anarchists have always rejected
   this approach. We deliberately call ourselves anarchists rather than
   Proudhonists, Bakuninists, Kropotkinists, or after any other person. As
   Malatesta argued in 1876 (the year of Bakunin's death) "[w]e follow
   ideas and not men, and rebel against this habit of embodying a
   principle in a man." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 198]

   Therefore, anarchists, unlike many (most?) Marxists do not believe that
   some prophet wrote down the scriptures in past centuries and if only we
   could reach a correct understanding of these writings today we would
   see the way forward. Chomsky put it extremely well:

     "The whole concept of Marxist or Freudian or anything like that is
     very odd. These concepts belong to the history of organised
     religion. Any living person, no matter how gifted, will make some
     contributions intermingled with error and partial understanding. We
     try to understand and improve on their contributions and eliminate
     the errors. But how can you identify yourself as a Marxist, or a
     Freudian, or an X-ist, whoever X may be? That would be to treat the
     person as a God to be revered, not a human being whose contributions
     are to be assimilated and transcended. It's a crazy idea, a kind of
     idolatry." [The Chomsky Reader, pp. 29-30]

   This means that anarchists recognise that any person, no matter how
   great or influential, are just human. They make mistakes, they fail to
   live up to all the ideals they express, they are shaped by the society
   they live in, and so on. Anarchists recognise this fact and extract the
   positive aspects of past anarchist thinkers, reject the rest and
   develop what we consider the living core of their ideas, learn from
   history and constantly try to bring anarchist ideas up-to-date (after
   all, a lot has changed since the days of Proudhon, Bakunin and
   Kropotkin and this has to be taken into account). As Max Nettlau put it
   with regards to Proudhon, "we have to extract from his work useful
   teachings that would be of great service to our modern libertarians,
   who nevertheless have to find their own way from theory to practice and
   to the critique of our present-day conditions, as Proudhon did in his
   time. This does not call for a slavish imitation; it implies using his
   work to inspire us and enable us to profit by his experience." [A Short
   History of Anarchism, pp. 46-7] Similarly for other anarchists - we see
   them as a source of inspiration upon which to build rather than a
   template which to copy. This means to attack anarchism by, say,
   attacking Bakunin's or Proudhon's personal failings is to totally miss
   the point. While anarchists may be inspired by the ideas of, say,
   Bakunin or Proudhon it does not mean we blindly follow all of their
   ideas. Far from it! We critically analysis their ideas and keep what is
   living and reject what is useless or dead. Sadly, such common sense is
   lacking in many who critique anarchism.

   However, the typical Marxist approach does have its benefits from a
   political perspective. It is very difficult for Marxists and Leninists
   to make an objective criticism of Anarchism for, as Albert Meltzer
   pointed out, "by its nature it undermines all the suppositions basic to
   Marxism. Marxism was held out to be the basic working class philosophy
   (a belief which has utterly ruined the working class movement
   everywhere). It holds that the industrial proletariat cannot owe its
   emancipation to anyone but themselves alone. It is hard to go back on
   that and say that the working class is not yet ready to dispense with
   authority placed over it . . . Marxism normally tries to refrain from
   criticising anarchism as such - unless driven to doing so, when it
   exposes its own authoritarianism . . . and concentrates its attacks not
   on Anarchism, but on Anarchists." [Anarchism: Arguments for and
   Against, p. 62] Needless to say, this technique is the one usually
   applied by Marxists (although, we must stress that usually their
   account of the ideas of Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin are so
   distorted that they fail even to do this!).

   So anarchist theory has developed since Proudhon, Bakunin and
   Kropotkin. At each period in history anarchism advanced in its
   understanding of the world, the anarchism of Bakunin was a development
   of that of Proudhon, these ideas were again developed by the
   anarcho-communists of the 1880s and by the syndicalists of the 1890's,
   by the Italian Malatesta, the Russian Kropotkin, the Mexican Flores
   Magon and many other individuals and movements. Today we stand on their
   shoulders, not at their feet.

   As such, to concentrate on the ideas of a few "leaders" misses the
   point totally. While anarchism contains many of the core insights of,
   say, Bakunin, it has also developed them and added to them. It has,
   concretely, taken into account, say, the lessons of the Russian and
   Spanish revolutions and so on. As such, even assuming that Marxist
   accounts of certain aspects of the ideas of Proudhon, Bakunin and
   Kropotkin were correct, they would have to be shown to be relevant to
   modern anarchism to be of any but historical interest. Sadly, Marxists
   generally fail to do this and, instead, we are subject to a (usually
   inaccurate) history lesson.

   In order to understand, learn from and transcend previous theorists we
   must honestly present their ideas. Unfortunately many Marxists do not
   do this and so this section of the FAQ involves correcting the many
   mistakes, distortions, errors and lies that Marxists have subjected
   anarchism to. Hopefully, with this done, a real dialogue can develop
   between Marxists and anarchists. Indeed, this has happened between
   libertarian Marxists (such as council communists and Situationists) and
   anarchists and both tendencies have benefited from it. Perhaps this
   dialogue between libertarian Marxists and anarchists is to be expected,
   as the mainstream Marxists have often misrepresented the ideas of
   libertarian Marxists as well - when not dismissing them as anarchists!

H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?

   According to many Marxists anarchists either reject the idea of
   defending a revolution or think that it is not necessary. The
   Trotskyists of Workers' Power present a typical Marxist account of what
   they consider as anarchist ideas on this subject:

     "the anarchist conclusion is not to build any sort of state in the
     first place - not even a democratic workers' state. But how could we
     stop the capitalists trying to get their property back, something
     they will definitely try and do?

     "Should the people organise to stop the capitalists raising private
     armies and resisting the will of the majority? If the answer is yes,
     then that organisation - whatever you prefer to call it - is a
     state: an apparatus designed to enable one class to rule over
     another.

     "The anarchists are rejecting something which is necessary if we are
     to beat the capitalists and have a chance of developing a classless
     society."
     ["What's wrong with anarchism?", pp. 12-13, World Revolution: Prague
     S26 2000, p. 13]

   It would be simple to quote Malatesta from 1891 on this issue and leave
   it at that. As he put some seem to suppose "that anarchists, in the
   name of their principles, would wish to see that strange freedom
   respected which violates and destroys the freedom and life of others.
   They seem almost to believe that after having brought down government
   and private property we would allow both to be quietly built up again,
   because of respect for the freedom of those who might feel the need to
   be rulers and property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting our
   ideas." [Anarchy, pp. 42-3] Pretty much common sense, so you would
   think! Sadly, this appears to not be the case. As such, we have to
   explain anarchist ideas on the defence of a revolution and why this
   necessity need not imply a state and, if it did, then it signifies the
   end of the revolution.

   The argument by Workers' Power is very common with the Leninist left
   and contains three fallacies, which we expose in turn. Firstly, we have
   to show that anarchists have always seen the necessity of defending a
   revolution. This shows that the anarchist opposition to the "democratic
   workers' state" (or "dictatorship of the proletariat") has nothing to
   do with beating the ruling class and stopping them regaining their
   positions of power. Secondly, we have to discuss the anarchist and
   Marxist definitions of what constitutes a "state" and show what they
   have in common and how they differ. Thirdly, we must summarise why
   anarchists oppose the idea of a "workers' state" in order for the real
   reasons why anarchists oppose it to be understood. Each issue will be
   discussed in turn.

   For revolutionary anarchists, it is a truism that a revolution will
   need to defend itself against counter-revolutionary threats. Bakunin,
   for example, while strenuously objecting to the idea of a "dictatorship
   of the proletariat" also thought a revolution would need to defend
   itself:

     "Immediately after established governments have been overthrown,
     communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary
     lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers will
     at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can defend
     itself in isolation. So it will be necessary to radiate revolution
     outward, to raise all of its neighbouring communes in revolt . . .
     and to federate with them for common defence." [No Gods, No Masters,
     vol. 1, p. 142]

   And:

     "the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the
     Commune . . . there will be a standing federation of the barricades
     and a Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made up of] delegates .
     . . invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at
     all times . . . all provinces, communes and associations . . .
     [will] delegate deputies to an agreed place of assembly (all . . .
     invested with binding mandated and accountable and subject to
     recall), in order to found the federation of insurgent associations,
     communes and provinces . . . and to organise a revolutionary force
     with the capacity of defeating the reaction . . . it is through the
     very act of extrapolation and organisation of the Revolution with an
     eye to the mutual defences of insurgent areas that the universality
     of the Revolution . . . will emerge triumphant." [Op. Cit., pp.
     155-6]

   Malatesta agreed, explicitly pointing to "corps of volunteers
   (anarchist formations)" as a means of defending a revolution from
   "attempts to reduce a free people to a state of slavery again." To
   defend a revolution required "the necessary geographical and mechanical
   knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to go
   and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the
   former nor the will and courage of the latter." [Anarchy, p. 42]
   Decades later, his position had not changed and he was still arguing
   for the "creation of voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as
   militia in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed
   attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to
   resist outside intervention" for only "the people in arms, in
   possession of the land, the factories and all the natural wealth" could
   "defend . . . the revolution." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas,
   p. 166 and p. 170]

   Alexander Berkman concurred. In his classic introduction to anarchism,
   he devoted a whole chapter to the issue which he helpfully entitled
   "Defense of the Revolution". He noted that it was "your duty, as an
   Anarchist, to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion .
   . . the social revolution . . . will defend itself against invasion
   from any quarter . . . The armed workers and peasants are the only
   effective defence of the revolution. By means of their unions and
   syndicates they must always be on guard against counter-revolutionary
   attack." [What is Anarchism?, pp. 231-2] Emma Goldman clearly and
   unambiguously stated that she had "always insisted that an armed attack
   on the Revolution must be met with armed force" and that "an armed
   counter-revolutionary and fascist attack can be met in no way except by
   an armed defence." [Vision on Fire, p. 222 and p. 217] Kropotkin,
   likewise, took it as a given that "a society in which the workers would
   have a dominant voice" would require a revolution to create and "each
   time that such a period of accelerated evolution and reconstruction on
   a grand scale begins, civil war is liable to break out on a small or
   large scale." The question was "how to attain the greatest results with
   the most limited amount of civil war, the smallest number of victims,
   and a minimum of mutual embitterment." To achieve this there was "only
   one means; namely, that the oppressed part of society should obtain the
   clearest possible conception of what they intend to achieve, and how,
   and that they should be imbued with the enthusiasm which is necessary
   for that achievement." Thus, "there are periods in human development
   when a conflict is unavoidable, and civil war breaks out quite
   independently of the will of particular individuals." [Memiors of a
   Revolutionist, pp. 270-1]

   So Durruti, while fighting at the front during the Spanish revolution,
   was not saying anything new or against anarchist theory when he stated
   that "the bourgeois won't let us create a libertarian communist society
   simply because we want to. They'll fight back and defend their
   privileges. The only way we can establish libertarian communism is by
   destroying the bourgeoisie" [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti in the Spanish
   Revolution, p. 484] Clearly, anarchism has always recognised the
   necessity of defending a revolution and proposed ideas to ensure it
   (ideas applied with great success by, for example, the Makhnovists in
   the Ukrainian Revolution and the CNT militias during the Spanish). As
   such, any assertion that anarchism rejects the necessity of defending a
   revolution is simply false. Sadly, it is one Marxists make repeatedly
   (undoubtedly inspired by Engels similar distortions - see [4]section
   H.4.7).

   Which, of course, brings us to the second assertion, namely that any
   attempt to defend a revolution means that a state has been created
   (regardless of what it may be called). For anarchists, such an argument
   simply shows that Marxists do not really understand what a state is.
   While the Trotskyist definition of a "state" may be (to quote Workers'
   Power) "an apparatus designed to enable one class to rule another," the
   anarchist definition is somewhat different. Anarchists, of course, do
   not deny that the modern state is (to use Malatesta's excellent
   expression) "the bourgeoisie's servant and gendarme." [Anarchy, p. 23]
   However, as we discuss in [5]section H.3.7, the Marxist analysis is
   superficial and fundamentally metaphysical rather than scientific.
   Anarchists take an evolutionary perspective on the state and, as a
   result, argue that every state that has ever existed has defended the
   power of a minority class and, unsurprisingly, has developed certain
   features to facilitate this. The key one is centralisation of power.
   This ensures that the working people are excluded from the decision
   making process and power remains a tool of the ruling class. As such,
   the centralisation of power (while it may take many forms) is the key
   means by which a class system is maintained and, therefore, a key
   aspect of a state.

   As Kropotkin put, the State idea "includes the existence of a power
   situated above society" as well as "a territorial concentration as well
   as the concentration of many functions of the life of societies in the
   hands of a few." It "implies some new relationships between members of
   society . . . in order to subject some classes to the domination of
   others" and this becomes obvious "when one studies the origins of the
   State." [The State: Its Historic Role, p. 10] This was the case with
   representative democracy:

     "To attack the central power, to strip it of its prerogatives, to
     decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to abandon to
     the people the control of its affairs, to run the risk of a truly
     popular revolution. That is why the bourgeoisie sought to reinforce
     the central government even more." [Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, p.
     143]

   This meant, Kropotkin continued, that the "representative system was
   organised by the bourgeoisie to ensure their domination, and it will
   disappear with them. For the new economic phase that is about to begin
   we must seek a new form of political organisation, based on a principle
   quite different from that of representation. The logic of events
   imposes it." [Op. Cit., p. 125] This suggests that the Marxist notion
   that we can use a state (i.e., any centralised and hierarchical social
   structure) to organise and defend a social revolution is based on
   flawed reasoning in which it "seems to be taken for granted that
   Capitalism and the workers' movement both have the same end in view. If
   this were so, they might perhaps use the same means; but as the
   capitalist is out to perfect his system of exploitation and government,
   whilst the worker is out for emancipation and liberty, naturally the
   same means cannot be employed for both purposes." [George Barrett,
   Objections to Anarchism, p. 343]

   To reproduce in the new society social structures which share the same
   characteristics (such as centralisation and delegation of power) which
   mark the institutions of class society would be a false step, one which
   can only recreate a new form of class system in which a new ruling
   elite govern and exploit the many. So while we agree with Marxists that
   the main function of the state is to defend class society, we also
   stress the structure of the state has evolved to execute that role. In
   the words of Rudolf Rocker:

     "[S]ocial institutions . . . do not arise arbitrarily, but are
     called into being by special needs to serve definite purposes . . .
     The newly arisen possessing classes had need of a political
     instrument of power to maintain their economic and social privileges
     over the masses of their own people . . . Thus arose the appropriate
     social conditions for the evolution of the modern state, as the
     organ of political power of privileged castes and classes for the
     forcible subjugation and oppression of the non-possessing classes .
     . . Its external forms have altered in the course of its historical
     development, but its functions have always been the same . . . And
     just as the functions of the bodily organs of . . . animals cannot
     be arbitrarily altered, so that, for example, one cannot at will
     hear with his eyes and see with his ears, so also one cannot at
     pleasure transform an organ of social oppression into an instrument
     for the liberation of the oppressed. The state can only be what it
     is: the defender of mass-exploitation and social privileges, and
     creator of privileged classes." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 14-5]

   As such, a new form of society, one based on the participation of all
   in the affairs of society (and a classless society can be nothing else)
   means the end of the state. This is because it has been designed to
   exclude the participation a classless society needs in order to exist.
   In anarchist eyes, it is an abuse of the language to call the
   self-managed organisations by which the former working class manage
   (and defend) a free society a state.

   However, as Workers Power indicate, it could be objected that the
   anarchist vision of a federation of communal and workplace assemblies
   and volunteer militias to defend it is simply a new form of state. In
   other words, that the anarchists advocate what most people (including
   most Marxists) would call a state as this federal system is based on
   social organisation, collective decision making and (ultimately) the
   armed people. This was the position of Marx and Engels, who asserted
   against Bakunin that "to call this machine a 'revolutionary Commune
   organised from the bottom to top' makes little difference. The name
   changes nothing of the substance" for to be able to do anything at all
   the communal councils "must be vested with some power and supported by
   a public force." [Collected Works, vol. 23, p. 469]

   Anarchists reject this argument. To quote Daniel Gurin, initially
   Bakunin used the term state "as synonyms for 'social collective.' The
   anarchists soon saw, however, that it was rather dangerous for them to
   use the same word as the authoritarians while giving it a quite
   different meaning. They felt that a new concept called for a new word
   and that the use of the old term could be dangerously ambiguous; so
   they ceased to give the name 'State' to the social collective of the
   future." [Anarchism, pp. 60-1] This is more than mere labels or
   semantics as it gets to the heart of the difference between libertarian
   and authoritarian conceptions of society and social change. Anarchists
   argue that the state is structured to ensure minority rule and,
   consequently, a "workers' state" would be a new form of minority rule
   over the workers. For this reason we argue that working class
   self-management from the bottom-up cannot be confused with a "state."
   The Russian Revolution showed the validity of this, with the Bolsheviks
   calling their dictatorship a "workers' state" in spite of the workers
   having no power in it.

   Anarchists have long pointed out that government is not the same as
   collective decision making and to call the bottom-up communal system
   anarchists aim for a "state" when its role is to promote and ensure
   mass participation in social life is nonsense. That Marxists are
   vaguely aware of this obvious fact explains why they often talk of a
   "semi-state", a "new kind of state", a state "unique in history," or
   use some other expression to describe their post-revolutionary system.
   This would be a state (to use Engels words) which is "no longer a state
   in the proper sense of the word." [quoted by Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 319]
   If that is the case, then why call it state?

   Somewhat ironically, Engels provided more than enough support for the
   anarchist position. It is perfectly possible to have social
   organisation and it not be a state. When discussing the Native American
   Iroquois Confederacy, Engels noted that "organ of the Confederacy was a
   Federal Council" which was "elected . . . and could always be removed"
   by popular assemblies. There was "no chief executive" but "two supreme
   war chiefs" and "[w]hen war broke out it was carried on mainly by
   volunteers." Yet this was "the organisation of a society which as yet
   knows no state." [Selected Works, p. 517, p. 518 and p. 516] In the
   anarchist commune there is a federal council elected and mandated by
   popular assemblies. These, in turn, are federated in a similar
   bottom-up manner. The means of production have been expropriated and
   held by society as a whole and so classes have been abolished.
   Volunteer militias have been organised for self-defence against
   counter-revolutionary attempts to subject the free people to authority.
   Why is this not a society which "knows no state"? Is it because the
   anarchist commune is fighting against the capitalist class? If so, does
   this mean that the Iroquois Confederacy became a state when it waged
   war against those seeking to impose bourgeois rule on it? That is
   doubtful and so Marx's assertion is simply wrong and reflects both the
   confusion at the heart of the Marxist theory of the state and the
   illogical depths Marxists sink to when attacking anarchism.

   This not a matter of mere "labels" as Marxists assert, but rather gets
   to the key issue of who has the real power in a revolution - the people
   armed or a new minority (the "revolutionary" government). In other
   words, most Marxists cannot tell the difference between libertarian
   organisation (power to the base and decision making from the bottom-up)
   and the state (centralised power in a few hands and top-down decision
   making). Which helps explain why the Bolshevik revolution was such a
   failure. The confusion of working class power with party power is one
   of the root problems with Marxism. So why do most Marxists tend to call
   their post-revolutionary organisation a state? Simply because, at some
   level, they recognise that, in reality, the working class does not
   wield power in the so-called "workers' state": the party does. This was
   the case in Russia. The working class never wielded power under the
   Bolsheviks and here is the most obvious contradiction in the Marxist
   theory of the state - a contradiction which, as we discuss in
   [6]section H.3.8 the Leninists solved by arguing that the party had to
   assert its power over the working class for its own good.

   Moreover, as we discuss in [7]section H.3.9, it is both simplistic and
   wrong to argue that the state is simply the tool of economic classes.
   The state is a source of social inequality in and of itself and,
   consequently, can oppress and exploit the working class just as much
   as, and independently of, any economically dominant class:

     "All political power inevitably creates a privileged situation for
     the men who exercise it. Thus it violates, from the beginning, the
     equalitarian principle and strikes at the heart of the Social
     Revolution . . . [It] inevitably becomes a source of other
     privileges, even if it does not depend on the bourgeoisie. Having
     taken over the Revolution, having mastered it, and bridled it, power
     is compelled to create a bureaucratic apparatus, indispensable to
     all authority which wants to maintain itself, to command, to order -
     in a word, 'to govern'. Rapidly, it attracts around itself all sorts
     of elements eager to dominate and exploit.

     "Thus it forms a new privileged caste, at first politically and
     later economically . . . It sows everywhere the seed of inequality
     and soon infects the whole social organism."
     [Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p. 249]

   So if it were simply a question of consolidating a revolution and its
   self-defence then there would be no argument:

     "But perhaps the truth is simply this: . . . [some] take the
     expression 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean simply the
     revolutionary action of the workers in taking possession of the land
     and the instruments of labour, and trying to build a society and
     organise a way of life in which there will be no place for a class
     that exploits and oppresses the producers.

     "Thus constructed, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be
     the effective power of all workers trying to bring down capitalist
     society and would thus turn into Anarchy as soon as resistance from
     reactionaries would have ceased and no one can any longer seek to
     compel the masses by violence to obey and work for him. In which
     case, the discrepancy between us would be nothing more than a
     question of semantics. Dictatorship of the proletariat would signify
     the dictatorship of everyone, which is to say, it would be a
     dictatorship no longer, just as government by everybody is no longer
     a government in the authoritarian, historical and practical sense of
     the word.

     "But the real supporters of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' do not
     take that line, as they are making quite plain in Russia. Of course,
     the proletariat has a hand in this, just as the people has a part to
     play in democratic regimes, that is to say, to conceal the reality
     of things. In reality, what we have is the dictatorship of one
     party, or rather, of one party's leaders: a genuine dictatorship,
     with its decrees, its penal sanctions, its henchmen and above all
     its armed forces, which are at present [1919] also deployed in the
     defence of the revolution against its external enemies, but which
     will tomorrow be used to impose the dictator's will upon the
     workers, to apply a break on revolution, to consolidate the new
     interests in the process of emerging and protect a new privileged
     class against the masses."
     [Malatesta, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 38-9]

   The question is, therefore, one of who "seizes power" - will it be the
   mass of the population or will it be a party claiming to represent it.
   The difference is vital and it confuses the issue to use the same word
   "state" to describe two such fundamentally different structures as a
   "bottom-up" self-managed communal federation and a "top-down"
   hierarchical centralised organisation (such as has been every state
   that has existed). This explains why anarchists reject the idea of a
   "democratic workers' state" as the means by which a revolution defends
   itself. Rather than signify working class power or management of
   society, it signifies the opposite - the seizure of power of a minority
   (in this case, the leaders of the vanguard party).

   Anarchists argue that the state is designed to exclude the mass of the
   population from the decision making process. This, ironically for
   Trotskyism, was one of the reasons why leading Bolsheviks (including
   Lenin and Trotsky) argued for a workers state. The centralisation of
   power implied by the state was essential so that the vanguard party
   could ignore (to use Worker's Power's phrase) "the will of the
   majority." This particular perspective was clearly a lesson they
   learned from their experiences during the Russian Revolution - as we
   discussed in [8]section H.1.2 the notion that the "dictatorship of the
   proletariat" was, in fact, the "dictatorship of the party" was a
   commonplace ideological truism in Leninist circles. As anarchists had
   warned, it was a dictatorship over the proletariat and acknowledged as
   such by the likes of Lenin and Trotsky.

   Needless to say, Workers' Power (like most Trotskyists) blame the
   degeneration of the Russian revolution on the Civil War and its
   isolation. However, the creation of a party dictatorship was not seen
   in these terms and, moreover, as we discuss in detail in [9]section H.6
   the Bolshevik undermining of working class autonomy and democracy
   started well before the outbreak of civil war, thus confirming
   anarchist theory. These conclusions of leading Leninists simply
   justified the actions undertaken by the Bolsheviks from the start.

   This is why anarchists reject the idea of a "democratic workers'
   state." Simply put, as far as it is a state, it cannot be democratic
   and in as far as it is democratic, it cannot be a state. The Leninist
   idea of a "workers' state" means, in fact, the seizure of power by the
   party. This, we must stress, naturally follows from the reality of the
   state. It is designed for minority rule and excludes, by its very
   nature, mass participation and this aspect of the state was one which
   the leading lights of Bolshevism agreed with. Little wonder, then, that
   in practice the Bolshevik regime suppressed of any form of democracy
   which hindered the power of the party. Maurice Brinton summed up the
   issue well when he argued that "'workers' power' cannot be identified
   or equated with the power of the Party - as it repeatedly was by the
   Bolsheviks . . . What 'taking power' really implies is that the vast
   majority of the working class at last realises its ability to manage
   both production and society - and organises to this end." [The
   Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. xiv]

   In summary, therefore, anarchists reject the idea that the defence of a
   revolution can be conducted by a state. As Bakunin once put it, there
   is the "Republic-State" and there is "the system of the
   Republic-Commune, the Republic-Federation, i.e. the system of
   Anarchism. This is the politics of the Social Revolution, which aims at
   the abolition of the State and establishment of the economic, entirely
   free organisation of the people - organisation from bottom to top by
   means of federation." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 314]
   Indeed, creating a new state will simply destroy the most important
   gain of any revolution - working class autonomy - and its replacement
   by another form of minority rule (by the party). Anarchists have always
   argued that the defence of a revolution must not be confused with the
   state and so argue for the abolition of the state and the defence of a
   revolution. Only when working class people actually run themselves
   society will a revolution be successful. For anarchists, this means
   that "effective emancipation can be achieved only by the direct,
   widespread, and independent action . . . of the workers themselves,
   grouped . . . in their own class organisations . . . on the basis of
   concrete action and self-government, helped but not governed, by
   revolutionaries working in the very midst of, and not above the mass
   and the professional, technical, defence and other branches." [Voline,
   Op. Cit., p. 197]

   This means that anarchists argue that the state cannot be transformed
   or adjusted, but has to be smashed by a social revolution and replaced
   with organisations and structures created by working class people
   during their own struggles (see [10]section H.1.4 for details).
   Anarchist opposition to the so-called workers' state has absolutely
   nothing to do with the issue of defending a revolution, regardless of
   what Marxists assert.

H.2.2 Do anarchists reject "class conflict" and "collective struggle"?

   Of course not. Anarchists have always taken a keen interest in the
   class struggle, in the organisation, solidarity and actions of working
   class people. Anarchist Nicholas Walter summarised the obvious and is
   worth quoting at length:

     "Virtually all forms of revolutionary socialism during the
     nineteenth century, whether authoritarian or libertarian, were based
     on the concept of class struggle . . . The term anarchist was first
     adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840, and although he disliked
     the class struggle, he recognised it existed, and took sides in it
     when he had to . . . during the French Revolution of 1848, he
     insisted that he was on the side of the proletariat against the
     bourgeoisie . . . his last book was a positive study of the need for
     specially proletarian politics . . .

     "The actual anarchist movement was founded later, by the
     anti-authoritarian sections of the First International . . . They
     accepted [its] founding Address . . ., drafted by Karl Marx, which
     assumed the primacy of the class struggle and insisted that 'the
     emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working
     classes themselves'; they accepted the Programme of the
     International Alliance of Social Democracy (1869), drafted by
     Michael Bakunin, which assumed the primacy of the class struggle . .
     . and they accepted the declaration of the St. Imier Congress which
     assumed the primacy of the class struggle and insisted that
     'rejecting all compromise to arrive at the accomplishment of the
     social revolution, the proletarians of all countries must establish,
     outside all bourgeois politics, the solidarity of revolutionary
     action' . . . This was certainly the first anarchist movement, and
     this movement was certainly based on a libertarian version of the
     concept of the class struggle.

     "Most of the leaders of this movement - first Michael Bakunin, James
     Guillaume, Errico Malatesta, Carlo Caliero, later Peter Kropotkin,
     Louise Michel, Emile Pouget, Jean Grave, and so on - took for
     granted that there was a struggle between the proletariat and the
     bourgeoisie and that the social revolution would be conducted by the
     former against the latter. They derived such ideas . . . from the
     traditional theory of revolutionary socialism and the traditional
     practice of working-class action . . .

     "The great revolutions of the early twentieth century - in Mexico,
     Russia, Spain - all derived from the class struggle and all involved
     anarchist intervention on the side of the working class. The great
     martyrs of the anarchist movement - from Haymarket in 1887 through
     Francisco Ferrer in 1909 to Sacco and Vanzetti in 1927 - were killed
     in the class struggle. The great partisans of anarchist warfare -
     from Emiliano Zapata through Nestor Makhno to Buenaventura Durruti -
     were all fighting in the class struggle.

     "So . . . class struggle in anarchism . . . [and] its importance in
     the anarchist movement is incontrovertible."
     [The Anarchist Past and other essays, pp. 60-2]

   Anyone even remotely aware of anarchism and its history could not fail
   to notice that class struggle plays a key role in anarchist theory,
   particularly (but not exclusively) in its revolutionary form. To assert
   otherwise is simply to lie about anarchism. Sadly, Marxists have been
   known to make such an assertion.

   For example, Pat Stack of the British SWP argued that anarchists
   "dismiss . . . the importance of the collective nature of change" and
   so "downplays the centrality of the working class" in the revolutionary
   process. This, he argues, means that for anarchism the working class
   "is not the key to change." He stresses that for Proudhon, Bakunin and
   Kropotkin "revolutions were not about . . . collective struggle or
   advance" and that anarchism "despises the collectivity." Amazingly he
   argues that for Kropotkin, "far from seeing class conflict as the
   dynamic for social change as Marx did, saw co-operation being at the
   root of the social process." Therefore, "[i]t follows that if class
   conflict is not the motor of change, the working class is not the agent
   and collective struggle not the means. Therefore everything from riot
   to bomb, and all that might become between the two, was legitimate when
   ranged against the state, each with equal merit." ["Anarchy in the
   UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246] Needless to say, he makes the usual
   exception for anarcho-syndicalists, thereby showing his total ignorance
   of anarchism and syndicalism (see [11]section H.2.8).

   Assertions like these are simply incredible. It is hard to believe that
   anyone who is a leading member of a Leninist party could write such
   nonsense which suggests that Stack is aware of the truth and simply
   decides to ignore it. All in all, it is very easy to refute these
   assertions. All we have to do is, unlike Stack, to quote from the works
   of Bakunin, Kropotkin and other anarchists. Even the briefest
   familiarity with the writings of revolutionary anarchism would soon
   convince the reader that Stack really does not know what he is talking
   about.

   Take, for example, Bakunin. Rather than reject class conflict,
   collective struggle or the key role of the working class, Bakunin based
   his political ideas on all three. As he put it, there was, "between the
   proletariat and the bourgeoisie, an irreconcilable antagonism which
   results inevitably from their respective stations in life." He stressed
   that "war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is unavoidable"
   and would only end with the "abolition of the bourgeoisie as a distinct
   class." In order for the worker to "become strong" he "must unite" with
   other workers in "the union of all local and national workers'
   associations into a world-wide association, the great International
   Working-Men's Association." It was only "through practice and
   collective experience" and "the progressive expansion and development
   of the economic struggle [that] will bring [the worker] more to
   recognise his [or her] true enemies: the privileged classes, including
   the clergy, the bourgeoisie, and the nobility; and the State, which
   exists only to safeguard all the privileges of those classes." There
   was "but a single path, that of emancipation through practical action"
   which "has only one meaning. It means workers' solidarity in their
   struggle against the bosses. It means trades-unions, organisation, and
   the federation of resistance funds." Then, "when the revolution -
   brought about by the force of circumstances - breaks out, the
   International will be a real force and know what it has to do", namely
   to "take the revolution into its own hands" and become "an earnest
   international organisation of workers' associations from all countries"
   which will be "capable of replacing this departing political world of
   States and bourgeoisie." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 97-8, p. 103 and p.
   110]

   Hardly the words of a man who rejected class conflict, the working
   class and the collective nature of change! Nor is this an isolated
   argument from Bakunin, it recurs continuously throughout Bakunin's
   works. For Bakunin, the "initiative in the new movement will belong to
   the people . . . in Western Europe, to the city and factory workers -
   in Russia, Poland, and most of the Slavic countries, to the peasants."
   However, "in order that the peasants rise up, it is absolutely
   necessary that the initiative in this revolutionary movement be taken
   up by the city workers . . . who combine in themselves the instincts,
   ideas, and conscious will of the Social Revolution." [The Political
   Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 375] Similarly, he argued that "equality" was
   the "aim" of the International Workers' Association and "the
   organisation of the working class its strength, the unification of the
   proletariat the world over . . . its weapon, its only policy." He
   stressed that "to create a people's force capable of crushing the
   military and civil force of the State, it is necessary to organise the
   proletariat." [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx,
   p. 95 and p. 254]

   Strikes played a very important role in Bakunin's ideas (as they do in
   all revolutionary anarchist thought). He saw the strike as "the
   beginnings of the social war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie
   . . . Strikes are a valuable instrument from two points of view.
   Firstly, they electrify the masses . . . awaken in them the feeling of
   the deep antagonism which exists between their interests and those of
   the bourgeoisie . . . secondly they help immensely to provoke and
   establish between the workers of all trades, localities and countries
   the consciousness and very fact of solidarity: a twofold action, both
   negative and positive, which tends to constitute directly the new world
   of the proletariat, opposing it almost in an absolute way to the
   bourgeois world." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of
   Revolutionary Anarchism 1872-1886, pp. 216-217] For Bakunin, strikes
   train workers for social revolution as they "create, organise, and form
   a workers' army, an army which is bound to break down the power of the
   bourgeoisie and the State, and lay the ground for a new world." [The
   Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 384-5]

   The revolution would be "an insurrection of all the people and the
   voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward." [Statism and
   Anarchy, p. 179] As we argue in [12]section I.2.3, the very process of
   collective class struggle would, for Bakunin and other anarchists,
   create the basis of a free society. Thus, in Bakunin's eyes, the
   "future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom
   upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in
   their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a
   great federation, international and universal." [Michael Bakunin:
   Selected Writings, p. 206]

   In other words, the basic structure created by the revolution would be
   based on the working classes own combat organisations, as created in
   their struggles against oppression and exploitation. The link between
   present and future would be labour unions (workers' associations),
   which played the key role of both the means to abolish capitalism and
   the state and as the framework of a socialist society. For Bakunin, the
   "very essence of socialism" lies in "the irrepressible conflict between
   the workers and the exploiters of labour." A "living, powerful,
   socialist movement" can "be made a reality only by the awakened
   revolutionary consciousness, the collective will, and the organisation
   of the working masses themselves." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 191 and p.
   212] Therefore, it was essential to "[o]rganise always more and more
   the practical militant international solidarity of the toilers of all
   trades and of all countries, and remember . . . you will find an
   immense, an irresistible force in this universal collectivity." Hence
   Bakunin's support for self-discipline within self-managed
   organisations, which came directly from the his awareness of the
   collective nature of social change: "Today, in revolutionary action as
   in labour itself, collectivism must replace individualism. Understand
   clearly that in organising yourselves you will be stronger than all the
   political leaders in the world." [quoted by Kenafick, Op. Cit., p. 291
   and p. 244]

   All of which is quite impressive for someone who was a founding father
   of a theory which, according to Stack, downplayed the "centrality of
   the working class," argued that the working class was "not the key to
   change," dismissed "the importance of the collective nature of change"
   as well as "collective struggle or advance" and "despises the
   collectivity"! Clearly, to argue that Bakunin held any of these views
   simply shows that the person making such statements does not have a
   clue what they are talking about.

   The same, needless to say, applies to all revolutionary anarchists.
   Kropotkin built upon Bakunin's arguments and, like him, based his
   politics on collective working class struggle and organisation. He
   consistently stressed that "the Anarchists have always advised taking
   an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on the
   direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector - the
   State." Such struggle, "better than any other indirect means, permits
   the worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the present
   conditions of work, while it opens his eyes to the evil done by
   Capitalism and the State that supports it, and wakes up his thoughts
   concerning the possibility of organising consumption, production, and
   exchange without the intervention of the capitalist and the State."
   [Evolution and Environment, pp. 82-3] In his article on "Anarchism" for
   the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Kropotkin stressed that anarchists "have
   endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour
   organisations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against
   capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary legislation."
   [Anarchism, p. 287]

   Far from denying the importance of collective class struggle, he
   actually stressed it again and again. As he once wrote, "to make the
   revolution, the mass of workers will have to organise themselves.
   Resistance and the strike are excellent means of organisation for doing
   this." He argued that it was "a question of organising societies of
   resistance for all trades in each town, of creating resistance funds
   against the exploiters, of giving more solidarity to the workers'
   organisations of each town and of putting them in contact with those of
   other towns, of federating them . . . Workers' solidarity must no
   longer be an empty word by practised each day between all trades and
   all nations." [quoted by Cahm, Op. Cit., pp. 255-6]

   As can be seen, Kropotkin was well aware of the importance of popular,
   mass, struggles. As he put it, anarchists "know very well that any
   popular movement is a step towards the social revolution. It awakens
   the spirit of revolt, it makes men [and women] accustomed to seeing the
   established order (or rather the established disorder) as eminently
   unstable." [Words of a Rebel, p. 203] As regards the social revolution,
   he argues that "a decisive blow will have to be administered to private
   property: from the beginning, the workers will have to proceed to take
   over all social wealth so as to put it into common ownership. This
   revolution can only be carried out by the workers themselves." In order
   to do this, the masses have to build their own organisation as the
   "great mass of workers will not only have to constitute itself outside
   the bourgeoisie . . . it will have to take action of its own during the
   period which will precede the revolution . . . and this sort of action
   can only be carried out when a strong workers' organisation exists."
   This meant, of course, it was "the mass of workers we have to seek to
   organise. We . . . have to submerge ourselves in the organisation of
   the people . . . When the mass of workers is organised and we are with
   it to strengthen its revolutionary idea, to make the spirit of revolt
   against capital germinate there . . . then it will be the social
   revolution." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, Op. Cit., pp. 153-4]

   He saw the class struggle in terms of "a multitude of acts of revolt in
   all countries, under all possible conditions: first, individual revolt
   against capital and State; then collective revolt - strikes and
   working-class insurrections - both preparing, in men's minds as in
   actions, a revolt of the masses, a revolution." Clearly, the mass,
   collective nature of social change was not lost on Kropotkin who
   pointed to a "multitude of risings of working masses and peasants" as a
   positive sign. Strikes, he argued, "were once 'a war of folded arms'"
   but now were "easily turning to revolt, and sometimes taking the
   proportions of vast insurrections." [Anarchism, p. 144]

   Kropotkin could not have been clearer. Somewhat ironically, given
   Stack's assertions, Kropotkin explicitly opposed the Marxism of his
   time (Social Democracy) precisely because it had "moved away from a
   pure labour movement, in the sense of a direct struggle against
   capitalists by means of strikes, unions, and so forth." The Marxists,
   he stated, opposed strikes and unions because they "diverted forces
   from electoral agitation" while anarchists "reject[ed] a narrowly
   political struggle [and] inevitably became a more revolutionary party,
   both in theory and in practice." [The Conquest of Bread and Other
   Writings, pp. 207-8, p. 208 and p. 209]

   And Pat Stack argues that Kropotkin did not see "class conflict as the
   dynamic for social change," nor "class conflict" as "the motor of
   change" and the working class "not the agent and collective struggle
   not the means"! Truly incredible and a total and utter distortion of
   Kropotkin's ideas on the subject.

   As for other anarchists, we discover the same concern over class
   conflict, collective struggle and organisation and the awareness of a
   mass social revolution by the working class. Emma Goldman, for example,
   argued that anarchism "stands for direct action" and that "[t]rade
   unionism, the economic area of the modern gladiator, owes its existence
   to direct action . . . In France, in Spain, in Italy, in Russian, nay
   even in England (witness the growing rebellion of English labour
   unions), direct, revolutionary economic action has become so strong a
   force in the battle for industrial liberty as to make the world realise
   the tremendous importance of labour's power. The General Strike [is]
   the supreme expression of the economic consciousness of the workers . .
   . Today every great strike, in order to win, must realise the
   importance of the solidaric general protest." [Anarchism and Other
   Essays, pp. 65-6] She placed collective class struggle at the centre of
   her ideas and, crucially, she saw it as the way to create an anarchist
   society:

     "It is this war of classes that we must concentrate upon, and in
     that connection the war against false values, against evil
     institutions, against all social atrocities. Those who appreciate
     the urgent need of co-operating in great struggles . . . must
     organise the preparedness of the masses for the overthrow of both
     capitalism and the state. Industrial and economic preparedness is
     what the workers need. That alone leads to revolution at the bottom
     . . . That alone will give the people the means to take their
     children out of the slums, out of the sweat shops and the cotton
     mills . . . That alone leads to economic and social freedom, and
     does away with all wars, all crimes, and all injustice." [Red Emma
     Speaks, pp. 355-6]

   For Malatesta, "the most powerful force for social transformation is
   the working class movement . . . Through the organisations established
   for the defence of their interests, workers acquire an awareness of the
   oppression under which they live and of the antagonisms which divide
   them from their employers, and so begin to aspire to a better life, get
   used to collective struggle and to solidarity." This meant that
   anarchists "must recognise the usefulness and importance of the
   workers' movement, must favour its development, and make it one of the
   levers of their action, doing all they can so that it . . . will
   culminate in a social revolution." Anarchists must "deepen the chasm
   between capitalists and wage-slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach
   expropriation of private property and the destruction of State." The
   new society would be organised "by means of free association and
   federations of producers and consumers." [Errico Malatesta: His Life
   and Ideas, p. 113, pp. 250-1 and p. 184] Alexander Berkman,
   unsurprisingly, argued the same thing. As he put it, only "the workers"
   as "the worst victims of present institutions," could abolish
   capitalism an the state as "it is to their own interest to abolish them
   . . . labour's emancipation means at the same time the redemption of
   the whole of society." He stressed that "only the right organisation of
   the workers can accomplish what we are striving for . . . Organisation
   from the bottom up, beginning with the shop and factory, on the
   foundation of the joint interests of the workers everywhere . . . alone
   can solve the labour question and serve the true emancipation of
   man[kind]." [What is Anarchism?, p. 187 and p. 207]

   As can be seen, the claim that Kropotkin or Bakunin, or anarchists in
   general, ignored the class struggle and collective working class
   struggle and organisation is either a lie or indicates ignorance.
   Clearly, anarchists have placed working class struggle, organisation
   and collective direct action and solidarity at the core of their
   politics (and as the means of creating a libertarian socialist society)
   from the start. Moreover, this perspective is reflected in the
   anarchist flag itself as we discuss in our [13]appendix on the symbols
   of anarchism. According to Louise Michel the "black flag is the flag of
   strikes." [The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel, p. 168] If
   anarchism does, as some Marxists assert, reject class conflict and
   collective struggle then using a flag associated with an action which
   expresses both seems somewhat paradoxical. However, for those with even
   a basic understanding of anarchism and its history there is no paradox
   as anarchism is obviously based on class conflict and collective
   struggle.

   Also see [14]section H.2.8 for a discussion of the relationship of
   anarchism to syndicalism.

H.2.3 Does anarchism yearn "for what has gone before"?

   Leninist Pat Stack states that one of the "key points of divergence"
   between anarchism and Marxism is that the former, "far from
   understanding the advances that capitalism represented, tended to take
   a wistful look back. Anarchism shares with Marxism an abhorrence of the
   horrors of capitalism, but yearns for what has gone before." ["Anarchy
   in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246]

   Like his other "key point" (namely the rejection of class struggle -
   see [15]last section), Stack is simply wrong. Even the quickest look at
   the works of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin would convince the reader
   that this is simply distortion. Rather than look backwards for our
   ideas of social life, anarchists have always been careful to base our
   ideas on the current state of society and what anarchist thinkers
   considered positive current trends within it.

   The dual element of progress is important to remember. Capitalism is a
   class society, marked by exploitation, oppression and various social
   hierarchies. In such a society progress can hardly be neutral. It will
   reflect vested interests, the needs of those in power, the rationales
   of the economic system (e.g. the drive for profits) and those who
   benefit from it, the differences in power between states and companies
   and so on. Equally, it will be shaped by the class struggle, the
   resistance of the working classes to exploitation and oppression, the
   objective needs of production, etc. As such, trends in society will
   reflect the various class conflicts, social hierarchies, power
   relationships and so on which exist within it.

   This is particularly true of the economy. The development of the
   industrial structure of a capitalist economy will be based on the
   fundamental need to maximise the profits and power of the capitalists.
   As such, it will develop (either by market forces or by state
   intervention) in order to ensure this. This means that various
   tendencies apparent in capitalist society exist specifically to aid the
   development of capital. It does not follow that because a society which
   places profits above people has found a specific way of organising
   production "efficient" it means that a socialist society will do. As
   such, anarchist opposition to specific tendencies within capitalism
   (such as the increased concentration and centralisation of companies)
   does not mean a "yearning" for the past. Rather, it shows an awareness
   that capitalist methods are precisely that and that they need not be
   suited for a society which replaces the profit system with human and
   ecological need as the criteria for decision making.

   For anarchists, this means questioning the assumptions of capitalist
   progress and so the first task of a revolution after the expropriation
   of the capitalists and the destruction of the state will be to
   transform the industrial structure and how it operates, not keep it as
   it is. Anarchists have long argued that capitalist methods cannot be
   used for socialist ends. In our battle to democratise and socialise the
   workplace, in our awareness of the importance of collective initiatives
   by the direct producers in transforming their work situation, we show
   that factories are not merely sites of production, but also of
   reproduction - the reproduction of a certain structure of social
   relations based on the division between those who give orders and those
   who take them. Moreover, the structure of industry has developed to
   maximise profits. Why assume that this structure will be equally as
   efficient in producing useful products by meaningful work which does
   not harm the environment, society or those who do the actual tasks? A
   further aspect of this is that many of the struggles today, from the
   Zapatistas in Chiapas to those against Genetically Modified (GM) food
   and nuclear power are precisely based on the understanding that
   capitalist "progress" can not be uncritically accepted. To resist the
   expulsion of people from the land in the name of progress or the
   introduction of terminator seeds is not to look back to "what had
   gone", although this is also precisely what the proponents of
   capitalist globalisation often accuse us of. Rather, it is to put
   "people before profit."

   That so many Marxists fail to understand this suggests that their
   ideology subscribes to notions of "progress" which simply builds upon
   capitalist ones. As such, only a sophist would confuse a critical
   evaluation of trends within capitalism with a yearning for the past. It
   means to buy into the whole capitalist notion of "progress" which has
   always been part of justifying the inhumanities of the status quo.
   Simply put, just because a process is rewarded by the profit driven
   market it does not mean that it makes sense from a human or ecological
   perspective. For example, as we argue in [16]section J.5.11, the
   capitalist market hinders the spread of co-operatives and workers'
   self-management in spite of their well documented higher efficiency and
   productivity. From the perspective of the needs of the capitalists,
   this makes perfect sense. In terms of the workers and efficient
   allocation and use of resources, it does not. Would Marxists argue that
   because co-operatives and workers' self-management of production are
   marginal aspects of the capitalist economy it means that they will play
   no part in a sane society or that if a socialist expresses interest in
   them it means that are "yearning" for a past mode of production? We
   hope not.

   This common Marxist failure to understand anarchist investigations of
   the future is, ironically enough, joined with a total failure to
   understand the social conditions in which anarchists have put forward
   their ideas. For all his claims that anarchists ignore "material
   conditions," it is Pat Stack (and others like him) who does so in his
   claims against Proudhon. Stack calls the Frenchman "the founder of
   modern anarchism" and states that Marx dubbed Proudhon "the socialist
   of the small peasant or master craftsman." Typically, Stack gets even
   this wrong as it was Engels who used those words, although Marx would
   probably have not disagreed if he had been alive when they were penned.
   [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 626] From this, Stack implies that Proudhon
   was "yearning for the past" when he advanced his mutualist ideas.

   Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. This is because the
   society in which the French anarchist lived was predominately artisan
   and peasant in nature. This was admitted by Marx and Engels in the
   Communist Manifesto ("[i]n countries like France" the peasants
   "constitute far more than half of the population." [Op. Cit., p. 493]).
   As such, for Proudhon to incorporate the aspirations of the majority of
   the population is not to "yearn for what has gone before" but rather an
   extremely sensible position to take. This suggests that for Engels to
   state that the French anarchist was "the socialist of the small peasant
   or master craftsman" was unsurprising, a simple statement of fact, as
   the French working classes were, at the time, predominately small
   peasants or master craftsmen (or artisans). It, in other words,
   reflected the society Proudhon lived in and, as such, did not reflect
   desires for the past but rather a wish to end exploitation and
   oppression now rather than some unspecified time in the future.

   Moreover, Proudhon's ideas cannot be limited to just that as Marxists
   try to do. As K. Steven Vincent points out Proudhon's "social theories
   may not be reduced to a socialism for only the peasant class, nor was
   it a socialism only for the petite bourgeois; it was a socialism of and
   for French workers. And in the mid-nineteenth century . . . most French
   workers were still artisans." Indeed, "[w]hile Marx was correct in
   predicting the eventual predominance of the industrial proletariat
   vis--vis skilled workers, such predominance was neither obvious nor a
   foregone conclusion in France during the nineteenth century. The
   absolute number of small industries even increased during most of the
   century." [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
   Socialism, p. 5 and p. 282] Proudhon himself noted in 1851 that of a
   population of 36 million, 24 million were peasants and 6 million were
   artisans. Of the remaining 6 million, these included wage-workers for
   whom "workmen's associations" would be essential as "a protest against
   the wage system," the "denial of the rule of capitalists" and for "the
   management of large instruments of labour." [The General Idea of the
   Revolution, pp. 97-8]

   To summarise, if the society in which you live is predominately made-up
   of peasants and artisans then it is hardly an insult to be called "the
   socialist of the small peasant or master craftsman." Equally, it can
   hardly represent a desire for "what has gone before" to tailor your
   ideas to the actual conditions in the country in which you live! And
   Stack accuses anarchists of ignoring "material conditions"!

   Neither can it be said that Proudhon ignored the development of
   industrialisation in France during his lifetime. Quite the reverse, in
   fact, as indicated above. Proudhon did not ignore the rise of
   large-scale industry and argued that such industry should be managed by
   the workers' themselves via workers associations. As he put it,
   "certain industries" required "the combined employment of a large
   number of workers" and so the producer is "a collectivity." In such
   industries "we have no choice" and so "it is necessary to form an
   association among the workers" because "without that they would remain
   related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two
   industrial castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a
   free and democratic society." [Op. Cit., pp. 215-6] Even Engels had to
   grudgingly admit that Proudhon supported "the association of workers"
   for "large-industry and large establishments, such as railways." [Op.
   Cit., p. 626]

   All in all, Stack is simply showing his ignorance of both Proudhon's
   ideas and the society (the "material conditions") in which they were
   shaped and were aimed for. As can be seen, Proudhon incorporated the
   development of large-scale industry within his mutualist ideas and so
   the need to abolish wage labour by workers' associations and workers'
   control of production. Perhaps Stack can fault Proudhon for seeking the
   end of capitalism too soon and for not waiting patiently will it
   developed further (if he does, he will also have to attack Marx, Lenin
   and Trotsky as well for the same failing!), but this has little to do
   with "yearn[ing] for what has gone before."

   After distorting Proudhon's ideas on industry, Stack does the same with
   Bakunin. He asserts the following:

     "Similarly, the Russian anarchist leader Bakunin argued that it was
     the progress of capitalism that represented the fundamental problem.
     For him industrialisation was an evil. He believed it had created a
     decadent western Europe, and therefore had held up the more
     primitive, less industrialised Slav regions as the hope for change."

   Now, it would be extremely interesting to find out where, exactly,
   Stack discovered that Bakunin made these claims. After all, they are at
   such odds with Bakunin's anarchist ideas that it is temping to conclude
   that Stack is simply making it up. This, we suggest, explains the total
   lack of references for such an outrageous claim. Looking at what
   appears to be his main source, we discover Paul Avrich writing that
   "[i]n 1848" (i.e. nearly 20 years before Bakunin became an anarchist!)
   Bakunin "spoke of the decadence of Western Europe and saw hope in the
   primitive, less industrialised Slavs for the regeneration of the
   Continent." [Anarchist Portraits, p. 8] The plagiarism is obvious, as
   are the distortions. Given that Bakunin became an anarchist in the
   mid-1860s, how his pre-anarchist ideas are relevant to an evaluation of
   anarchism escapes logic. It makes as much sense as quoting Marx to
   refute fascism as Mussolini was originally the leader of the left-wing
   of the Italian Socialist Party!

   It is, of course, simple to refute Stack's claims. We need only do that
   which he does not, namely quote Bakunin. For someone who thought
   "industrialisation was an evil," a key aspect of Bakunin's ideas on
   social revolution was the seizing of industry and its placing under
   social ownership. As he put it, "capital and all tools of labour belong
   to the city workers - to the workers associations. The whole
   organisation of the future should be nothing but a free federation of
   workers - agricultural workers as well as factory workers and
   associations of craftsmen." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p.
   410] Bakunin argued that "to destroy . . . all the instruments of
   labour . . . would be to condemn all humanity - which is infinity too
   numerous today to exist . . . on the simple gifts of nature . . . - to
   . . . death by starvation. Thus capital cannot and must not be
   destroyed. It must be preserved." Only when workers "obtain not
   individual but collective property in capital" and when capital is no
   longer "concentrated in the hands of a separate, exploiting class" will
   they be able "to smash the tyranny of capital." [The Basic Bakunin, pp.
   90-1] He stressed that only "associated labour, this is labour
   organised upon the principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is
   adequate to the task of maintaining the existence of a large and
   somewhat civilised society." Moreover, the "whole secret of the
   boundless productivity of human labour consists first of all in
   applying . . . scientifically developed reason . . . and then in the
   division of that labour." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp.
   341-2] Hardly the thoughts of someone opposed to industrialisation!
   Unsurprisingly, then, Eugene Pyziu noted that "[i]n an article printed
   in 1868 [Bakunin] rejected outright the doctrine of the rottenness of
   the West and of the messianic destiny of Russia." [The Doctrine of
   Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin, p. 61]

   Rather than oppose industrialisation and urge the destruction of
   industry, Bakunin considered one of the first acts of the revolution
   would be workers' associations taking over the means of production and
   turning them into collective property managed by the workers
   themselves. Hence Daniel Gurin's comment:

     "Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to say they
     declared themselves without equivocation in favour of the common
     exploitation, not by the State but by associated workers of the
     large-scale means of production and of the public services. Proudhon
     has been quite wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of
     private property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", pp. 23-33, The
     Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 32]

   Clearly, Stack does not have the faintest idea of what he is talking
   about! Nor is Kropotkin any safer than Proudhon or Bakunin from Stack's
   distortions:

     "Peter Kropotkin, another famous anarchist leader to emerge in
     Russia, also looked backwards for change. He believed the ideal
     society would be based on small autonomous communities, devoted to
     small scale production. He had witnessed such communities among
     Siberian peasants and watchmakers in the Swiss mountains."

   First, we must note the plagiarism. Stack is summarising Paul Avrich's
   summary of Kropotkin's ideas. [Op. Cit., p. 62] Rather than go to the
   source material, Stack provides an interpretation of someone else's
   interpretation of someone else's ideas! Clearly, the number of links in
   the chain means that something is going to get lost in the process and,
   of course, it does. The something which "gets lost" is, unfortunately,
   Kropotkin's ideas.

   Ultimately, Stack is simply showing his total ignorance of Kropotkin's
   ideas by making such a statement. At least Avrich expanded upon his
   summary to mention that Kropotkin's positive evaluation of using modern
   technology and the need to apply it on an appropriate level to make
   work and the working environment as pleasant as possible. As Avrich
   summarises, "[p]laced in small voluntary workshops, machinery would
   rescue human beings from the monotony and toil of large-scale
   capitalist enterprise, allow time for leisure and cultural pursuits,
   and remove forever the stamp of inferiority traditionally borne by
   manual labour." [Op. Cit., p. 63] Hardly "backward looking" to desire
   the application of science and technology to transform the industrial
   system into one based on the needs of people rather than profit!

   Stack must be hoping that the reader has, like himself, not read
   Kropotkin's classic work Fields, Factories and Workshops for if they
   have then they would be aware of the distortion Stack subjects
   Kropotkin's ideas to. While Avrich does present, in general, a
   reasonable summary of Kropotkin's ideas, he does place it into a
   framework of his own making. Kropotkin while stressing the importance
   of decentralising industry within a free society did not look backward
   for his inspiration. Rather, he looked to trends within existing
   society, trends he thought pointed in an anti-capitalist direction.
   This can be seen from the fact he based his ideas on detailed analysis
   of current developments in the economy and came to the conclusion that
   industry would spread across the global (which has happened) and that
   small industries will continue to exist side by side with large ones
   (which also has been confirmed). From these facts he argued that a
   socialist society would aim to decentralise production, combining
   agriculture with industry and both using modern technology to the
   fullest. This was possible only after a social revolution which
   expropriated industry and the land and placed social wealth into the
   hands of the producers. Until then, the positive trends he saw in
   modern society would remain circumcised by the workings of the
   capitalist market and the state.

   As we discuss the fallacy that Kropotkin (or anarchists in general)
   have argued for "small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale
   production" in [17]section I.3.8, we will not do so here. Suffice to
   say, he did not, as is often asserted, argue for "small-scale
   production" (he still saw the need for factories, for example) but
   rather for production geared to appropriate levels, based on the
   objective needs of production (without the distorting effects generated
   by the needs of capitalist profits and power) and, of necessity, the
   needs of those who work in and live alongside industry (and today we
   would add, the needs of the environment). In other words, the
   transformation of capitalism into a society human beings could live
   full and meaningful lives in. Part of this would involve creating an
   industry based on human needs. "Have the factory and the workshop at
   the gates of your fields and gardens and work in them," he argued. "Not
   those large establishments, of course, in which huge masses of metals
   have to be dealt with and which are better placed at certain spots
   indicated by Nature, but the countless variety of workshops and
   factories which are required to satisfy the infinite diversity of
   tastes among civilised men [and women]." The new factories and
   workplaces would be "airy and hygienic, and consequently economical, .
   . . in which human life is of more account than machinery and the
   making of extra profits." [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p.
   197] Under capitalism, he argued, the whole discourse of economics
   (like industrial development itself) was based on the logic and
   rationale of the profit motive:

     "Under the name of profits, rent and interest upon capital, surplus
     value, and the like, economists have eagerly discussed the benefits
     which the owners of land or capital, or some privileged nations, can
     derive, either from the under-paid work of the wage-labourer, or
     from the inferior position of one class of the community towards
     another class, or from the inferior economical development of one
     nation towards another nation. . .

     "In the meantime the great question - 'What have we to produce, and
     how?' necessarily remained in the background . . . The main subject
     of social economy - that is, the economy of energy required for the
     satisfaction of human needs - is consequently the last subject which
     one expects to find treated in a concrete form in economical
     treatises."
     [Op. Cit., p. 17]

   Kropotkin's ideas were, therefore, an attempt to discuss how a
   post-capitalist society could develop, based on an extensive
   investigation of current trends within capitalism, and reflecting the
   needs which capitalism ignores. To fetishise big industry, as Leninists
   tend to do, means locking socialism itself into the logic of capitalism
   and, by implication, sees a socialist society which will basically be
   the same as capitalism, using the technology, industrial structure and
   industry developed under class society without change (see [18]section
   H.3.12). Rather than condemn Kropotkin, Stack's comments (and those
   like them) simply show the poverty of the Leninist critique of
   capitalism and its vision of the socialist future.

   All in all, anyone who claims that anarchism is "backward looking" or
   "yearns for the past" simply has no idea what they are talking about.

H.2.4 Do anarchists think "the state is the main enemy"?

   Pat Stack argues that "the idea that dominates anarchist thought" is
   "that the state is the main enemy, rather than identifying the state as
   one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed." ["Anarchy in
   the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246] Marxist Paul Thomas states that
   "Anarchists insist that the basis source of social injustice is the
   state." [Karl Marx and the Anarchists, p. 2]

   On the face of it, such assertions make little sense. After all, was
   not the first work by the first self-declared anarchist called What is
   Property? and contained the revolutionary maxim "property is theft"?
   Surely this fact alone would be enough to put to rest the notion that
   anarchists view the state as the main problem in the world? Obviously
   not. Flying in the face of this well known fact as well as anarchist
   theory, Marxists have constantly repeated the falsehood that anarchists
   consider the state as the main enemy. Indeed, Stack and Thomas are
   simply repeating an earlier assertion by Engels:

     "Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism
     and communism. The chief point concerning the former is that he does
     not regard capital, i.e. the class antagonism between capitalists
     and wage workers which has arisen through social development, but
     the state as the main enemy to be abolished . . . our view [is] that
     state power is nothing more than the organisation which the ruling
     classes - landowners and capitalists - have provided for themselves
     in order to protect their social privileges, Bakunin maintains that
     it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has
     his capital only be the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state
     is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away
     with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the
     contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of all means
     of production in the hands of a few, and the state will fall of
     itself. The difference is an essential one . . . the abolition of
     capital is precisely the social revolution." [Marx, Engels and
     Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 71]

   As will come as no surprise, Engels did not bother to indicate where he
   discovered Bakunin's ideas on these matters. Similarly, his followers
   raise this kind of assertion as a truism, apparently without the need
   for evidence to support the claim. This is hardly surprising as
   anarchists, including Bakunin, have expressed an idea distinctly at
   odds with Engels' claims, namely that the social revolution would be
   marked by the abolition of capitalism and the state at the same time.
   That this is the case can be seen from John Stuart Mill who, unlike
   Engels, saw that Bakunin's ideas meant "not only the annihilation of
   all government, but getting all property of all kinds out of the hands
   of the possessors to be used for the general benefit." ["Chapters on
   Socialism," Principles of Political Economy, p. 376] If the great
   liberal thinker could discern this aspect of anarchism, why not Engels?

   After all, this vision of a social revolution (i.e. one that combined
   political, social and economic goals) occurred continuously throughout
   Bakunin's writings when he was an anarchist. Indeed, to claim that he,
   or anarchists in general, just opposed the state suggests a total
   unfamiliarity with anarchist theory. For Bakunin, like all anarchists,
   the abolition of the state occurs at the same time as the abolition of
   capital. This joint abolition is precisely the social revolution. As
   one academic put it:

     "In Bakunin's view, the struggle against the main concentration of
     power in society, the state, was no less necessary than the struggle
     against capital. Engels, however, puts the matter somewhat
     differently, arguing that for Bakunin the state was the main enemy,
     as if Bakunin had not held that capital, too, was an enemy and that
     its expropriation was a necessary even if not sufficient condition
     for the social revolution . . . [Engels'] formulation . . . distorts
     Bakunin's argument, which also held capital to be an evil necessary
     to abolish" [Alvin W. Gouldner, "Marx's Last Battle: Bakunin and the
     First International", pp. 853-884, Theory and Society, Vol. 11, No.
     6, pp. 863-4]

   In 1865, for example, we discover Bakunin arguing that anarchists "seek
   the destruction of all States" in his "Program of the Brotherhood." Yet
   he also argued that a member of this association "must be socialist"
   and see that "labour" was the "sole producer of social assets" and so
   "anyone enjoying these without working is an exploiter of another man's
   labour, a thief." They must also "understand that there is no liberty
   in the absence of equality" and so the "attainment of the widest
   liberty" is possible only "amid the most perfect (de jure and de facto)
   political, economic and social equality." The "sole and supreme
   objective" of the revolution "will be the effective political, economic
   and social emancipation of the people." This was because political
   liberty "is not feasible without political equality. And the latter is
   impossible without economic and social equality." This means that the
   "land belongs to everyone. But usufruct of it will belong only to those
   who till it with their own hands." As regards industry, "through the
   unaided efforts and economic powers of the workers' associations,
   capital and the instruments of labour will pass into the possession of
   those who will apply them . . . through their own labours." He opposed
   sexism, for women are "equal in all political and social rights."
   Ultimately, "[n]o revolution could succeed . . . unless it was
   simultaneously a political and a social revolution. Any exclusively
   political revolution . . . will, insofar as it consequently does not
   have the immediate, effective, political and economic emancipation of
   the people as its primary objective, prove to be . . . illusory,
   phoney." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 134-41]

   In 1868, Bakunin was arguing the same ideas. The "Association of the
   International Brethren seeks simultaneously universal, social,
   philosophical, economic and political revolution, so that the present
   order of things, rooted in property, exploitation, domination and the
   authority principle" will be destroyed. The "revolution as we
   understand it will . . . set about the . . . complete destruction of
   the State . . . The natural and necessary upshot of that destruction"
   will include the "[d]issolution of the army, magistracy, bureaucracy,
   police and clergy" and "[a]ll productive capital and instruments of
   labour . . . be[ing] confiscated for the benefit of toilers
   associations, which will have to put them to use in collective
   production" as well as the "[s]eizure of all Church and State
   properties." The "federated Alliance of all labour associations . . .
   will constitute the Commune." The people "must make the revolution
   everywhere, and . . . ultimate direction of it must at all times be
   vested in the people organised into a free federation of agricultural
   and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom up." [Op.
   Cit., pp. 152-6]

   As these the words of a person who considered the state as the "chief
   evil" or "that the state is the main enemy"? Of course not, rather
   Bakunin clearly identified the state as one aspect of a class society
   that has to be destroyed. As he put it, the "State, which has never had
   any task other than to regularise, sanction and . . . protect the rule
   of the privileged classes and exploitation of the people's labour for
   the rich, must be abolished. Consequently, this requires that society
   be organised from the bottom up through the free formation and free
   federation of worker associations, industrial, agricultural, scientific
   and artisan alike, . . . founded upon collective ownership of the land,
   capital, raw materials and the instruments of labour, which is to say,
   all large-scale property . . . leaving to private and hereditary
   possession only those items that are actually for personal use." [Op.
   Cit., p. 182] Clearly, as Wayne Thorpe notes, for Bakunin "[o]nly the
   simultaneous destruction of the state and of the capitalist system,
   accompanied by the organisation from below of a federalist system of
   administration based upon labour's economic associations . . . could
   achieve true liberty." ["The Workers Themselves", p. 6]

   Rather than seeing the state as the main evil to be abolished, Bakunin
   always stressed that a revolution must be economic and political in
   nature, that it must ensure political, economic and social liberty and
   equality. As such, he argued for both the destruction of the state and
   the expropriation of capital (both acts conducted, incidentally, by a
   federation of workers' associations or workers' councils). While the
   apparatus of the state was being destroyed ("Dissolution of the army,
   magistracy, bureaucracy, police and clergy"), capitalism was also being
   uprooted and destroyed ("All productive capital and instruments of
   labour . . . confiscated for the benefit of toilers associations"). To
   assert, as Engels did, that Bakunin ignored the necessity of abolishing
   capitalism and the other evils of the current system while focusing
   exclusively on the state, is simply distorting his ideas. As Mark Leier
   summarises in his excellent biography of Bakunin, Engels "was just
   flat-out wrong . . . What Bakunin did argue was that the social
   revolution had to be launched against the state and capitalism
   simultaneously, for the two reinforced each other." [Bakunin: The
   Creative Passion, p. 274]

   Kropotkin, unsurprisingly, argued along identical lines as Bakunin. He
   stressed that "the revolution will burn on until it has accomplished
   its mission: the abolition of property-owning and of the State." This
   revolution, he re-iterated, would be a "mass rising up against property
   and the State." Indeed, Kropotkin always stressed that "there is one
   point to which all socialists adhere: the expropriation of capital must
   result from the coming revolution." This mean that "the area of
   struggle against capital, and against the sustainer of capital -
   government" could be one in which "various groups can act in agreement"
   and so "any struggle that prepares for that expropriation should be
   sustained in unanimity by all the socialist groups, to whatever shading
   they belong." [Words of a Rebel, p. 75 and p. 204] Little wonder
   Kropotkin wrote his famous article "Expropriation" on this subject! As
   he put it:

     "Expropriation - that is the guiding word of the coming revolution,
     without which it will fail in its historic mission: the complete
     expropriation of all those who have the means of exploiting human
     beings; the return to the community of the nation of everything that
     in the hands of anyone can be used to exploit others." [Op. Cit.,
     pp. 207-8]

   This was because he was well aware of the oppressive nature of
   capitalism: "For the worker who must sell his labour, it is impossible
   to remain free, and it is precisely because it is impossible that we
   are anarchists and communists." [Selected Writings on Anarchism and
   Revolution, p. 305] For Kropotkin, "the task we impose ourselves" is to
   acquire "sufficient influence to induce the workmen to avail themselves
   of the first opportunity of taking possession of land and the mines, of
   railways and factories," to bring working class people "to the
   conviction that they must reply on themselves to get rid of the
   oppression of Capital." [Act for Yourselves, p. 32] Strange words if
   Marxist assertions were true. As can be seen, Kropotkin is simply
   following Bakunin's ideas on the matter. He, like Bakunin, was well
   aware of the evils of capitalism and that the state protects these
   evils.

   Unsurprisingly, he called anarchism "the no-government system of
   socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] For Kropotkin, the "State is there to
   protect exploitation, speculation and private property; it is itself
   the by-product of the rapine of the people. The proletariat must rely
   on his own hands; he can expect nothing of the State. It is nothing
   more than an organisation devised to hinder emancipation at all costs."
   [Words of a Rebel, p. 27] Rather than see the state as the main evil,
   he clearly saw it as the protector of capitalism - in other words, as
   one aspect of a class system which needed to be replaced by a better
   society:

     "The very words Anarchist-Communism show in what direction society,
     in our opinion, is already going, and one what lines it can get rid
     of the oppressive powers of Capital and Government . . . The first
     conviction to acquire is that nothing short of expropriation on a
     vast scale, carried out by the workmen themselves, can be the first
     step towards a reorganisation of our production on Socialist
     principles." [Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, pp. 32-3]

   Similarly with all other anarchists. Emma Goldman, for example,
   summarised for all anarchists when she argued that anarchism "really
   stands for" the "liberation of the human body from the domination of
   property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government."
   Goldman was well aware that wealth "means power; the power to subdue,
   to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade."
   She considered property "not only a hindrance to human well-being, but
   an obstacle, a deadly barrier, to all progress." A key problem of
   modern society was that "man must sell his labour" and so "his
   inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a master."
   Anarchism, she stressed, was the "the only philosophy that can and will
   do away with this humiliating and degrading situation . . . There can
   be no freedom in the large sense of the word . . . so long as mercenary
   and commercial considerations play an important part in the
   determination of personal conduct." The state, ironically for Stack's
   claim, was "necessary only to maintain or protect property and
   monopoly." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73, p. 66, p. 50 and p. 51]

   Errico Malatesta, likewise, stressed that, for "all anarchists," it was
   definitely a case that the "abolition of political power is not
   possible without the simultaneous destruction of economic privilege."
   The "Anarchist Programme" he drafted listed "Abolition of private
   property" before "Abolition of government" and argued that "the present
   state of society" was one in "which some have inherited the land and
   all social wealth, while the mass of the people, disinherited in all
   respects, is exploited and oppressed by a small possessing class." It
   ends by arguing that anarchism wants "the complete destruction of the
   domination and exploitation of man by man" and for "expropriation of
   landowners and capitalists for the benefit of all; and the abolition of
   government." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 158, p. 184, p.
   183, p. 197 and p. 198] Nearly three decades previously, we find
   Malatesta arguing the same idea. As he put it in 1891, anarchists
   "struggle for anarchy, and for socialism, because we believe that
   anarchy and socialism must be realised immediately, that is to say that
   in the revolutionary act we must drive government away, abolish
   property . . . human progress is measured by the extent government
   power and private property are reduced." [Anarchy, p. 54]

   Little wonder Bertrand Russell stated that anarchism "is associated
   with belief in the communal ownership of land and capital" because,
   like Marxism, it has the "perception that private capital is a source
   of tyranny by certain individuals over others." [Roads to Freedom, p.
   40] Russell was, of course, simply pointing out the obvious. As Brian
   Morris correctly summarises:

     "Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of
     politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil, ignoring
     other aspects of social and economic life. This is a
     misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way
     anarchism has been defined, and partly because Marxist historians
     have tried to exclude anarchism from the broader socialist movement.
     But when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as
     well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly
     evident that it has never had this limited vision. It has always
     challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been
     equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the
     state." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal
     of Desire Armed, no. 45, p, p. 40]

   All in all, Marxist claims that anarchists view the state as the "chief
   evil" or see the destruction of the state as the "main idea" of
   anarchism are simply talking nonsense. In fact, rather than anarchists
   having a narrow view of social liberation, it is, in fact, Marxists who
   do so. By concentrating almost exclusively on the (economic) class
   source of exploitation, they blind themselves to other forms of
   exploitation and domination that can exist independently of (economic)
   class relationships. This can be seen from the amazing difficulty that
   many of them got themselves into when trying to analyse the Stalinist
   regime in Russia. Anarchists are well aware that the state is just one
   aspect of the current class system but unlike Marxists we recognise
   that "class rule must be placed in the much larger context of hierarchy
   and domination as a whole." [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom,
   p. 28] This has been the anarchist position from the nineteenth century
   onwards and one which is hard not to recognise if you are at all
   familiar with the anarchist movement and its theory. As one historian
   notes, we have never been purely anti-state, but also anti-capitalist
   and opposed to all forms of oppression:

     "Anarchism rejected capitalism . . . not only because it viewed it
     as inimical to social equality, but also because it saw it as a form
     of domination detrimental to individual freedom. Its basic tenet
     regarded hierarchical authority - be it the state, the church, the
     economic elite, or patriarchy - as unnecessary and deleterious to
     the maximisation of human potential." [Jose Moya, Italians in Buenos
     Aires's Anarchist Movement, p. 197]

   So we oppose the state because it is just one aspect of a class ridden
   and hierarchical system. We just recognise that all the evils of that
   system must be destroyed at the same time to ensure a social revolution
   rather than just a change in who the boss is.

H.2.5 Do anarchists think "full blown" socialism will be created overnight?

   Another area in which Marxists misrepresent anarchism is in the
   assertion that anarchists believe a completely socialist society (an
   ideal or "utopian" society, in other words) can be created "overnight."
   As Marxist Bertell Ollman puts it, "[u]nlike anarcho-communists, none
   of us [Marxists] believe that communism will emerge full blown from a
   socialist revolution. Some kind of transition and period of
   indeterminate length for it to occur are required." [Bertell Ollman
   (ed.), Market Socialism: The Debate among Socialists, p. 177] This
   assertion, while it is common, fails to understand the anarchist vision
   of revolution. We consider it a process and not an event: "By
   revolution we do not mean just the insurrectionary act." [Malatesta,
   Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 156]

   Once this is understood, the idea that anarchists think a "full blown"
   anarchist society will be created "overnight" is a fallacy. As Murray
   Bookchin pointed out, "Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta were not so naive
   as to believe that anarchism could be established overnight. In
   imputing this notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted the
   Russian anarchist's views." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 137] Indeed,
   Kropotkin stressed that anarchists "do not believe that in any country
   the Revolution will be accomplished at a stroke, in the twinkling of a
   eye, as some socialists dream." Moreover, "[n]o fallacy more harmful
   has ever been spread than the fallacy of a 'One-day Revolution.'" [The
   Conquest of Bread, p. 81] Bakunin argued that a "more or less prolonged
   transitional period" would "naturally follow in the wake of the great
   social crisis" implied by social revolution. [The Political Philosophy
   of Bakunin, p. 412] The question, therefore, is not whether there will
   be a "transitional" society after a revolution but what kind of
   transition will it be.

   So anarchists are aware that a "full blown" communist society will not
   come about immediately. Rather, the creation of such a society will be
   a process which the revolution will start off. As Alexander Berkman put
   it in his classic introduction to communist-anarchist ideas "you must
   not confuse the social revolution with anarchy. Revolution, in some of
   its stages, is a violent upheaval; anarchy is a social condition of
   freedom and peace. The revolution is the means of bringing anarchy
   about but it is not anarchy itself. It is to pave the road for anarchy,
   to establish conditions which will make a life of liberty possible."
   However, the "end shapes the means" and so "to achieve its purpose the
   revolution must be imbued with and directed by the anarchist spirit and
   ideas . . . the social revolution must be anarchist in method as in
   aim." [What is Anarchism?, p. 231]

   Berkman also acknowledged that "full blown" communism was not likely
   after a successful revolution. "Of course," he argued, "when the social
   revolution has become thoroughly organised and production is
   functioning normally there will be enough for everybody. But in the
   first stages of the revolution, during the process of re-construction,
   we must take care to supply the people as best we can, and equally,
   which means rationing." Clearly, in such circumstances "full blown"
   communism would be impossible and, unsurprisingly, Berkman argued that
   would not exist. However, the principles that inspire communism and
   anarchism could be applied immediately. This meant that both the state
   and capitalism would be abolished. While arguing that "[t]here is no
   other way of securing economic equality, which alone is liberty" than
   communist anarchism, he also stated that it is "likely . . . that a
   country in social revolution may try various economic experiments . . .
   different countries and regions will probably try out various methods,
   and by practical experience learn the best way. The revolution is at
   the same time the opportunity and justification for it." Rather than
   "dictate to the future, to prescribe its mode of conduct", Berkman
   argued that his "purpose is to suggest, in board outline the principles
   which must animate the revolution, the general lines of action it
   should follow if it is to accomplish its aim - the reconstruction of
   society on a foundation of freedom and equality." [Op. Cit., p. 215 and
   p. 230]

   Malatesta argued along similar lines. While urging the "complete
   destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man" by the
   "expropriation of landlords and capitalists for the benefit of all" and
   "the abolition of government," he recognised that in "the
   post-revolutionary period, in the period of reorganisation and
   transition, there might be 'offices for the concentration and
   distribution of the capital of collective enterprises', that there
   might or might not be titles recording the work done and the quantity
   of goods to which one is entitled." However, he stressed that this "is
   something we shall have to wait and see about, or rather, it is a
   problem which will have many and varied solutions according to the
   system of production and distribution which will prevail in the
   different localities and among the many . . . groupings that will
   exist." He argued that while, eventually, all groups of workers
   (particularly the peasants) will "understand the advantages of
   communism or at least of the direct exchange of goods for goods," this
   may not happen "in a day." If some kind of money was used, then people
   should "ensure that [it] truly represents the useful work performed by
   its possessors" rather than being that "powerful means of exploitation
   and oppression" is currently is. [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas,
   pp. 198-9 and pp. 100-1] Emma Goldman, also, saw "a society based on
   voluntary co-operation of productive groups, communities and societies
   loosely federated together, eventually developing into a free
   communism, actuated by a solidarity of interests." [Red Emma Speaks, p.
   50]

   So rather than seeing a "full blown" communist society appearing
   instantly from a revolution, anarcho-communists see a period of
   transition in which the degree of communism in a given community or
   area is dependent on the objective conditions facing it. This period of
   transition would see different forms of social experimentation but the
   desire is to see libertarian communist principles as the basis of as
   much of this experimentation as possible. To claim that
   anarcho-communists ignore reality and see communism as being created
   overnight is simply a distortion of their ideas. Rather, they are aware
   that the development towards communism is dependent on local
   conditions, conditions which can only be overcome in time and by the
   liberated community re-organising production and extending it as
   required. Thus we find Malatesta arguing 1884 that communism could be
   brought about immediately only in a very limited number of areas and,
   "for the rest," collectivism would have to be accepted "for a
   transitional period." This was because, "[f]or communism to be
   possible, a high stage of moral development is required of the members
   of society, a sense of solidarity both elevated and profound, which the
   upsurge of the revolution may not suffice to induce. This doubt is the
   more justified in that material conditions favourable to this
   development will not exist at the beginning." [quoted by Daniel Gurin,
   Anarchism, p. 51]

   Clearly, our argument contradicts the widely held view that anarchists
   believed an utopian world would be created instantly after a
   revolution. Of course, by asserting that anarchists think "full blown
   communism" will occur without some form of transitional period,
   Marxists paint a picture of anarchism as simply utopian, a theory which
   ignores objective reality in favour of wishful thinking. However, as
   seen above, such is not the case. Anarchists are aware that "full blown
   communism" is dependent on objective conditions and, therefore, cannot
   be implemented until those conditions are meet. Until such time as the
   objective conditions are reached, various means of distributing goods,
   organising and managing production, and so on will be tried. Such
   schemes will be based as far as possible on communistic principles.

   Such a period of transition would be based on libertarian and communist
   principles. The organisation of society would be anarchist - the state
   would be abolished and replaced by a free federation of workers and
   community associations. The economic structure would be socialist -
   production would be based on self-managed workplaces and the principles
   of distribution would be as communistic as possible under the given
   objective conditions.

   It also seems strange for Marxists to claim that anarchists thought a
   "full blown" communist society was possible "overnight" given that
   anarchists had always noted the difficulties facing a social
   revolution. Kropotkin, for example, continually stressed that a
   revolution would face extensive economic disruption. In his words:

     "A political revolution can be accomplished without shaking the
     foundations of industry, but a revolution where the people lay hands
     upon property will inevitably paralyse exchange and production . . .
     This point cannot be too much insisted upon; the reorganisation of
     industry on a new basis . . . cannot be accomplished in a few days;
     nor, on the other hand, will people submit to be half starved for
     years in order to oblige the theorists who uphold the wage system.
     To tide over the period of stress they will demand what they have
     always demanded in such cases - communisation of supplies - the
     giving of rations." [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 72-3]

   The basic principles of this "transition" period would, therefore, be
   based on the "socialising of production, consumption and exchange." The
   state would be abolished and "federated Communes" would be created. The
   end of capitalism would be achieved by the "expropriation" of
   "everything that enables any man - be he financier, mill-owner, or
   landlord - - to appropriate the product of others' toil." Distribution
   of goods would be based on "no stint or limit to what the community
   possesses in abundance, but equal sharing and dividing of those
   commodities which are scare or apt to run short." [Op. Cit., p. 136, p.
   61 and p. 76] Clearly, while not "full blown" communism by any means,
   such a regime does lay the ground for its eventual arrival. As Max
   Nettlau summarised, "[n]othing but a superficial interpretation of some
   of Kropotkin's observations could lead one to conclude that anarchist
   communism could spring into life through an act of sweeping
   improvisation, with the waving of a magic wand." [A Short History of
   Anarchism, p. 80]

   This was what happened in the Spanish Revolution, for example.
   Different collectives operated in different ways. Some tried to
   introduce free communism, some a combination of rationing and
   communism, others introduced equal pay, others equalised pay as much as
   possible and so on. Over time, as economic conditions changed and
   difficulties developed the collectives changed their mode of
   distribution to take them into account. These collectives indicate well
   the practical aspects of anarchist and its desire to accommodate and
   not ignore reality.

   Lastly, and as an aside, it this anarchist awareness of the disruptive
   effects of a revolution on a country's economy which, in part, makes
   anarchists extremely sceptical of pro-Bolshevik rationales that blame
   the difficult economic conditions facing the Russian Revolution for
   Bolshevik authoritarianism (see [19]section H.6.1 for a fuller
   discussion of this). If, as Kropotkin argued, a social revolution
   inevitably results in massive economic disruption then, clearly,
   Bolshevism should be avoided if it cannot handle such inevitable
   events. In such circumstances, centralisation would only aid the
   disruption, not reduce it. This awareness of the problems facing a
   social revolution also led anarchists to stress the importance of local
   action and mass participation. As Kropotkin put it, the "immense
   constructive work demanded by a social revolution cannot be
   accomplished by a central government . . . It has need of knowledge, of
   brains and of the voluntary collaboration of a host of local and
   specialised forces which alone can attack the diversity of economic
   problems in their local aspects." [Anarchism, pp. 255-6] Without this
   local action, co-ordinated joint activity would remain a dead letter.

   In summary, anarchists acknowledge that politically there is no
   transitional period (i.e. the state must be abolished and replaced by a
   free federation of self-managed working class organisations).
   Economically anarchists recognise that different areas will develop in
   different ways and so there will be various economical transitional
   forms. Rather than seeing "full blown communism" being the instant
   result of a socialist revolution, anarchist-communists actually argue
   the opposite - "full blown communism" will develop only after a
   successful revolution and the inevitable period of social
   reconstruction which comes after it. A "full blown" communist economy
   will develop as society becomes ready for it. What we do argue is that
   any transitional economic form must be based on the principles of the
   type of society it desires. In other words, any transitional period
   must be as communistic as possible if communism is your final aim and,
   equally, it must be libertarian if your final goal is freedom.

   Also see [20]section I.2.2 for further discussion on this issue.

H.2.6 How do Marxists misrepresent Anarchist ideas on mutual aid?

   Anarchist ideas on mutual aid are often misrepresented by Marxists.
   Looking at Pat Stack's "Anarchy in the UK?" article, for example, we
   find a particularly terrible misrepresentation of Kropotkin's ideas.
   Indeed, it is so incorrect that it is either a product of ignorance or
   a desire to deceive (and as we shall indicate, it is probably the
   latter). Here is Stack's account of Kropotkin's ideas:

     "And the anarchist Peter Kropotkin, far from seeing class conflict
     as the dynamic for social change as Marx did, saw co-operation being
     at the root of the social process. He believed the co-operation of
     what he termed 'mutual aid' was the natural order, which was
     disrupted by centralised states. Indeed in everything from public
     walkways and libraries through to the Red Cross, Kropotkin felt he
     was witnessing confirmation that society was moving towards his
     mutual aid, prevented only from completing the journey by the state.
     It follows that if class conflict is not the motor of change, the
     working class is not the agent and collective struggle not the
     means." ["Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246]

   There are three issues with Stack's summary. Firstly, Kropotkin did
   not, in fact, reject class conflict as the "dynamic of social change"
   nor reject the working class as its "agent." Secondly, all of Stack's
   examples of "Mutual Aid" do not, in fact, appear in Kropotkin's classic
   book Mutual Aid. They do appear in other works by Kropotkin but not as
   examples of "mutual aid." Thirdly, in Mutual Aid Kropotkin discusses
   such aspects of working class "collective struggle" as strikes and
   unions. All in all, it is Stack's total and utter lack of understanding
   of Kropotkin's ideas which immediately stands out from his comments.

   As we have discussed how collective, working class direct action,
   organisation and solidarity in the class struggle were at the core of
   Kropotkin's politics in [21]section H.2.2, we will not do so here.
   Rather, we will discuss how Stack lies about Kropotkin's ideas on
   mutual aid. As just noted, the examples Stack lists are not to be found
   in Kropotkin's classic work Mutual Aid. Now, if Kropotkin had
   considered them as examples of "mutual aid" then he would have listed
   them in that work. This does not mean, however, that Kropotkin did not
   mention these examples. He does, but in other works (notably his essay
   Anarchist-Communism: Its Basis and Principles) and he does not use them
   as examples of mutual aid. Here are Kropotkin's own words on these
   examples:

     "We maintain, moreover, not only that communism is a desirable state
     of society, but that the growing tendency of modern society is
     precisely towards communism - free communism - notwithstanding the
     seemingly contradictory growth of individualism. In the growth of
     individualism . . . we see merely the endeavours of the individual
     towards emancipating himself from the steadily growing powers of
     capital and the State. But side by side with this growth we see also
     . . . the latent struggle of the producers of wealth to maintain the
     partial communism of old, as well as to reintroduce communist
     principles in a new shape, as soon as favourable conditions permit
     it. . . the communist tendency is continually reasserting itself and
     trying to make its way into public life. The penny bridge disappears
     before the public bridge; and the turnpike road before the free
     road. The same spirit pervades thousands of other institutions.
     Museums, free libraries, and free public schools; parks and pleasure
     grounds; paved and lighted streets, free for everybody's use; water
     supplied to private dwellings, with a growing tendency towards
     disregarding the exact amount of it used by the individual; tramways
     and railways which have already begun to introduce the season ticket
     or the uniform tax, and will surely go much further in this line
     when they are no longer private property: all these are tokens
     showing in what direction further progress is to be expected.

     "It is in the direction of putting the wants of the individual above
     the valuation of the service he has rendered, or might render, to
     society; in considering society as a whole, so intimately connected
     together that a service rendered to any individual is a service
     rendered to the whole society."
     [Anarchism, pp. 59-60]

   As is clear, the examples Stack selects have nothing to do with mutual
   aid in Kropotkin's eyes. Rather, they are examples of communistic
   tendencies within capitalism, empirical evidence that can be used to
   not only show that communism can work but also that it is not a utopian
   social solution but an expression of tendencies within society. Simply
   put, he is using examples from existing society to show that communism
   is not impossible.

   Similarly with Stack's other examples, which are not used as
   expressions of "mutual aid" but rather as evidence that social life can
   be organised without government. [Op. Cit., pp. 65-7] Just as with
   communism, he gave concrete examples of libertarian tendencies within
   society to prove the possibility of an anarchist society. And just like
   his examples of communistic activities within capitalism, his examples
   of co-operation without the state are not listed as examples of "mutual
   aid."

   All this would suggest that Stack has either not read Kropotkin's works
   or that he has and consciously decided to misrepresent his ideas. In
   fact, its a combination of the two. Stack (as proven by his talk at
   Marxism 2001) gathered his examples of "mutual aid" from Paul Avrich's
   essay "Kropotkin's Ethical Anarchism" contained in his Anarchist
   Portraits. As such, he has not read the source material. Moreover, he
   simply distorted what Avrich wrote. In other words, not only has he not
   read Kropotkin's works, he consciously decided to misrepresent the
   secondary source he used. This indicates the quality of almost all
   Marxist critiques of anarchism.

   For example, Avrich correctly noted that Kropotkin did not "deny that
   the 'struggle for existence' played an important role in the evolution
   of species. In Mutual Aid he declares unequivocally that 'life is
   struggle; and in that struggle the fittest survive.'" Kropotkin simply
   argued that co-operation played a key role in determining who was, in
   fact, the fittest. Similarly, Avrich listed many of the same examples
   Stack presents but not in his discussion of Kropotkin's ideas on mutual
   aid. Rather, he correctly did so in his discussion of how Kropotkin saw
   examples of anarchist communism "manifesting itself 'in the thousands
   of developments of modern life.'" This did not mean that Kropotkin did
   not see the need for a social revolution, quite the reverse. As Avrich
   noted, Kropotkin "did not shrink from the necessity of revolution" as
   he "did not expect the propertied classes to give up their privileges
   and possession without a fight." This "was to be a social revolution,
   carried out by the masses themselves" achieved by means of
   "expropriation" of social wealth. [Anarchist Portraits, p. 58, p. 62
   and p. 66]

   So much for Stack's claims. As can be seen, they are not only a total
   misrepresentation of Kropotkin's work, they are also a distortion of
   his source!

   A few more points need to be raised on this subject.

   Firstly, Kropotkin never claimed that mutual aid "was the natural
   order." Rather, he stressed that Mutual Aid was (to use the subtitle of
   his book on the subject) "a factor of evolution." As he put it, mutual
   aid "represents one of the factors of evolution", another being "the
   self-assertion of the individual, not only to attain personal or caste
   superiority, economical, political, and spiritual, but also in its much
   more important although less evident function of breaking through the
   bonds, always prone to become crystallised, which the tribe, the
   village community, the city, and the State impose upon the individual."
   Thus Kropotkin recognised that there is class struggle within society
   as well as "the self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive
   element" (i.e., struggle against forms of social association which now
   hinder individual freedom and development). Kropotkin did not deny the
   role of struggle, in fact the opposite as he stressed that the book's
   examples concentrated on mutual aid simply because mutual struggle
   (between individuals of the same species) had "already been analysed,
   described, and glorified from time immemorial" and, as such, he felt no
   need to illustrate it. He did note that it "was necessary to show,
   first of all, the immense part which this factor plays in the evolution
   of both the animal world and human societies. Only after this has been
   fully recognised will it be possible to proceed to a comparison between
   the two factors." [Mutual Aid, p. 231 and pp. 231-2] So at no stage did
   Kropotkin deny either factor (unlike the bourgeois apologists he was
   refuting).

   Secondly, Stack's argument that Kropotkin argued that co-operation was
   the natural order is in contradiction with his other claims that
   anarchism "despises the collectivity" and "dismiss[es] the importance
   of the collective nature of change" (see [22]section H.2.2). How can
   you have co-operation without forming a collective? And, equally,
   surely support for co-operation clearly implies the recognition of the
   "collective nature of change"? Moreover, had Stack bothered to read
   Kropotkin's classic he would have been aware that both unions and
   strikes are listed as expressions of "mutual aid" (a fact, of course,
   which would undermine Stack's silly assertion that anarchists reject
   collective working class struggle and organisation). Thus we find
   Kropotkin stating that "Unionism" expressed the "worker's need of
   mutual support" as well as discussing how the state "legislated against
   the workers' unions" and that these were "the conditions under which
   the mutual-aid tendency had to make its way." "To practise mutual
   support under such circumstances was anything but an easy task." This
   repression failed, as "the workers' unions were continually
   reconstituted" and spread, forming "vigourous federal organisations . .
   . to support the branches during strikes and prosecutions." In spite of
   the difficulties in organising unions and fighting strikes, he noted
   that "every year there are thousands of strikes . . . the most severe
   and protracted contests being, as a rule, the so-called 'sympathy
   strikes,' which are entered upon to support locked-out comrades or to
   maintain the rights of the unions." Anyone (like Kropotkin) who had
   "lived among strikers speak with admiration of the mutual aid and
   support which are constantly practised by them." [Op. Cit., pp. 210-3]

   Kropotkin, as noted, recognised the importance of struggle or
   competition as a means of survival but also argued that co-operation
   within a species was the best means for it to survive in a hostile
   environment. This applied to life under capitalism. In the hostile
   environment of class society, then the only way in which working class
   people could survive would be to practice mutual aid (in other words,
   solidarity). Little wonder, then, that Kropotkin listed strikes and
   unions as expressions of mutual aid in capitalist society. Moreover, if
   we take Stack's arguments at face value, then he clearly is arguing
   that solidarity is not an important factor in the class struggle and
   that mutual aid and co-operation cannot change the world! Hardly what
   you would expect a socialist to argue. In other words, his inaccurate
   diatribe against Kropotkin backfires on his own ideas.

   Thirdly, Mutual Aid is primarily a work of popular science and not a
   work on revolutionary anarchist theory like, say, The Conquest of Bread
   or Words of a Rebel. As such, it does not present a full example of
   Kropotkin's revolutionary ideas and how mutual aid fits into them.
   However, it does present some insights on the question of social
   progress which indicate that he did not think that "co-operation" was
   "at the root of the social process," as Stack claims. For example,
   Kropotkin noted that "[w]hen Mutual Aid institutions . . . began . . .
   to lose their primitive character, to be invaded by parasitic growths,
   and thus to become hindrances to process, the revolt of individuals
   against these institutions took always two different aspects. Part of
   those who rose up strove to purify the old institutions, or to work out
   a higher form of commonwealth." But at the same time, others
   "endeavoured to break down the protective institutions of mutual
   support, with no other intention but to increase their own wealth and
   their own powers." In this conflict "lies the real tragedy of history."
   He also noted that the mutual aid tendency "continued to live in the
   villages and among the poorer classes in the towns." Indeed, "in so far
   as" as new "economical and social institutions" were "a creation of the
   masses" they "have all originated from the same source" of mutual aid.
   [Op. Cit., pp. 18-9 and p. 180] Clearly, Kropotkin saw history marked
   by both co-operation and conflict as you would expect in a society
   divided by class and hierarchy.

   Significantly, Kropotkin considered Mutual Aid as an attempt to write
   history from below, from the perspective of the oppressed. As he put
   it, history, "such as it has hitherto been written, is almost entirely
   a description of the ways and means by which theocracy, military power,
   autocracy, and, later on, the richer classes' rule have been promoted,
   established, and maintained." The "mutual aid factor has been hitherto
   totally lost sight of; it was simply denied, or even scoffed at." [Op.
   Cit., p. 231] He was well aware that mutual aid (or solidarity) could
   not be applied between classes in a class society. Indeed, as noted,
   his chapters on mutual aid under capitalism contain the strike and
   union. As he put it in an earlier work:

     "What solidarity can exist between the capitalist and the worker he
     exploits? Between the head of an army and the soldier? Between the
     governing and the governed?" [Words of a Rebel, p. 30]

   In summary, Stack's assertions about Kropotkin's theory of "Mutual Aid"
   are simply false. He simply distorts the source material and shows a
   total ignorance of Kropotkin's work (which he obviously has not
   bothered to read before criticising it). A truthful account of "Mutual
   Aid" would involve recognising that Kropotkin showed it being expressed
   in both strikes and labour unions and that he saw solidarity between
   working people as the means of not only surviving within the hostile
   environment of capitalism but also as the basis of a mass revolution
   which would end it.

H.2.7 Who do anarchists see as their "agents of social change"?

   It is often charged, usually without any evidence, that anarchists do
   not see the working class as the "agent" of the social revolution. Pat
   Stack, for example, states "the failure of anarchism [is] to understand
   the centrality of the working class itself." He argues that for Marx,
   "the working class would change the world and in the process change
   itself. It would become the agent for social advance and human
   liberty." For Bakunin, however, "skilled artisans and organised factory
   workers, far from being the source of the destruction of capitalism,
   were 'tainted by pretensions and aspirations'. Instead Bakunin looked
   to those cast aside by capitalism, those most damaged, brutalised and
   marginalised. The lumpen proletariat, the outlaws, the 'uncivilised,
   disinherited, illiterate', as he put it, would be his agents for
   change." ["Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246] He fails to
   provide any references for his accusations. This is unsurprising, as to
   do so would mean that the reader could check for themselves the
   validity of Stack's claims.

   Take, for example, the quote "uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate"
   Stack uses as evidence. This expression is from an essay written by
   Bakunin in 1872 and which expressed what he considered the differences
   between his ideas and those of Marx. The quote can be found on page 294
   of Bakunin on Anarchism. On the previous page, we discover Bakunin
   arguing that "for the International to be a real power, it must be able
   to organise within its ranks the immense majority of the proletariat of
   Europe, of America, of all lands." [p. 293] Clearly Stack is quoting
   out of context, distorting Bakunin's position to present a radically
   false image of anarchism. Moreover, as we will indicate, Stack's also
   quotes them outside the historical context as well.

   Let us begin with Bakunin's views on "skilled artisans and organised
   factory workers." In Statism and Anarchy, for example, we discover
   Bakunin arguing that the "proletariat . . . must enter the
   International [Workers' Association] en masse, form factory, artisan,
   and agrarian sections, and unite them into local federations" for "the
   sake of its own liberation." [p. 51] This perspective is the
   predominant one in Bakunin's ideas with the Russian continually arguing
   that anarchists saw "the new social order" being "attained . . .
   through the social (and therefore anti-political) organisation and
   power of the working masses of the cities and villages." He argued that
   "only the trade union sections can give their members . . . practical
   education and consequently only they can draw into the organisation of
   the International the masses of the proletariat, those masses without
   whose practical co-operation . . . the Social Revolution will never be
   able to triumph." The International, in Bakunin's words, "organises the
   working masses . . . from the bottom up" and that this was "the proper
   aim of the organisation of trade union sections." He stressed that
   revolutionaries must "[o]rganise the city proletariat in the name of
   revolutionary Socialism . . . [and] unite it into one preparatory
   organisation together with the peasantry." [The Political Philosophy of
   Bakunin, p. 300, p. 310, p. 319 and p. 378]

   This support for organised workers and artisans can also be seen from
   the rest of the essay Stack distorts, in which Bakunin discusses the
   "flower of the proletariat" as well as the policy that the
   International Workingmen's Association should follow (i.e. the
   organised revolutionary workers). He argued that its "sections and
   federations [must be] free to develop its own policies . . . [to]
   attain real unity, basically economic, which will necessarily lead to
   real political unity . . . The foundation for the unity of the
   International . . . has already been laid by the common sufferings,
   interests, needs, and real aspirations of the workers of the whole
   world." He stressed that "the International has been . . . the work of
   the proletariat itself . . . It was their keen and profound instinct as
   workers . . . which impelled them to find the principle and true
   purpose of the International. They took the common needs already in
   existence as the foundation and saw the international organisation of
   economic conflict against capitalism as the true objective of this
   association. In giving it exclusively this base and aim, the workers at
   once established the entire power of the International. They opened
   wide the gates to all the millions of the oppressed and exploited." The
   International, as well as "organising local, national and international
   strikes" and "establishing national and international trade unions,"
   would discuss "political and philosophical questions." The workers
   "join the International for one very practical purpose: solidarity in
   the struggle for full economic rights against the oppressive
   exploitation by the bourgeoisie." [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 297-8, pp.
   298-9 and pp. 301-2]

   All this, needless to say, makes a total mockery of Stack's claim that
   Bakunin did not see "skilled artisans and organised factory workers" as
   "the source of the destruction of capitalism" and "agents for change."
   Indeed, it is hard to find a greater distortion of Bakunin's ideas.
   Rather than dismiss "skilled artisans" and "organised factory workers"
   Bakunin desired to organise them along with agricultural workers into
   unions and get these unions to affiliate to the International Workers'
   Association. He argued again and again that the working class,
   organised in union, were the means of making a revolution (i.e. "the
   source of the destruction of capitalism," to use Stack's words).

   Only in this context can we understand Bakunin's comments which Stack
   (selectively) quotes. Any apparent contradiction generated by Stack's
   quoting out of context is quickly solved by looking at Bakunin's work.
   This reference to the "uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate" comes
   from a polemic against Marx. From the context, it can quickly be seen
   that by these terms Bakunin meant the bulk of the working class. In his
   words:

     "To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the
     Marxists, the upper layer, the aristocracy of labour, those who are
     the most cultured, who earn more and live more comfortably that all
     the other workers. Precisely this semi-bourgeois layer of workers
     would, if the Marxists had their way, constitute their fourth
     governing class. This could indeed happen if the great mass of the
     proletariat does not guard against it. By virtue of its relative
     well-being and semi-bourgeois position, this upper layer of workers
     is unfortunately only too deeply saturated with all the political
     and social prejudices and all the narrow aspirations and pretensions
     of the bourgeoisie. Of all the proletariat, this upper layer is the
     least socialist, the most individualist.

     "By the flower of the proletariat, I mean above all that great mass,
     those millions of the uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable,
     the illiterates . . . I mean precisely that eternal 'meat' (on which
     governments thrive), that great rabble of the people (underdogs,
     'dregs of society') ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels by the
     phrase . . . Lumpenproletariat"
     [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 294]

   Thus Bakunin contrasted a "semi-bourgeois" layer to the "great mass of
   the proletariat." In a later work, Bakunin makes the same point, namely
   that there was "a special category of relatively affluent workers,
   earning higher wages, boasting of their literary capacities and . . .
   impregnated by a variety of bourgeois prejudices . . . in Italy . . .
   they are insignificant in number and influence . . . In Italy it is the
   extremely poor proletariat that predominates. Marx speaks disdainfully,
   but quite unjustly, of this Lumpenproletariat. For in them, and only in
   them, and not in the bourgeois strata of workers, are there
   crystallised the entire intelligence and power of the coming Social
   Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 334] Again it is clear that Bakunin is
   referring to a small minority within the working class and not
   dismissing the working class as a whole. He explicitly pointed to the
   "bourgeois-influenced minority of the urban proletariat" and contrasted
   this minority to "the mass of the proletariat, both rural and urban."
   [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 254]

   Clearly, Stack is distorting Bakunin's ideas on this subject when he
   claims that Bakunin thought all workers were "tainted by pretensions
   and aspirations." In fact, like Marx, Engels and Lenin, Bakunin
   differentiated between different types of workers. This did not mean he
   rejected organised workers or skilled artisans nor the organisation of
   working people into revolutionary unions, quite the reverse. As can be
   seen, Bakunin argued there was a group of workers who accepted
   bourgeois society and did relatively well under it. It was these
   workers who were "frequently no less egoistic than bourgeois
   exploiters, no less pernicious to the International than bourgeois
   socialists, and no less vain and ridiculous than bourgeois nobles."
   [The Basic Bakunin, p. 108] It is comments like this that Marxists
   quote out of context and use for their claims that Bakunin did not see
   the working class as the agent of social change. However, rather than
   refer to the whole working class, Stack quotes Bakunin's thoughts in
   relation to a minority strata within it. Clearly, from the context,
   Bakunin did not mean all working class people.

   Also, let us not forget the historical context. After all, when Bakunin
   was writing the vast majority of the working population across the
   world was, in fact, illiterate and disinherited. To get some sort of
   idea of the numbers of working people who would have been classed as
   "the uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable, the illiterates" we
   have to provide some numbers. In Spain, for example, "in 1870,
   something like 60 per cent of the population was illiterate." [Gerald
   Brenan, The Spanish Labyrinth, p. 50] In Russia, in 1897 (i.e. 21 years
   after Bakunin's death), "only 21% of the total population of European
   Russia was literate. This was mainly because of the appallingly low
   rate of literacy in the countryside - 17% compared to 45% in the
   towns." [S.A. Smith, Red Petrograd, p. 34] Stack, in effect, is
   excluding the majority of the working masses from the working class
   movement and the revolution in the 1860-70s by his comments. Little
   wonder Bakunin said what he said. By ignoring the historical context
   (as he ignores the context of Bakunin's comments), Stack misleads the
   reader and presents a distinctly distorted picture of Bakunin's
   thought.

   In other words, Bakunin's comments on the "flower of the proletariat"
   apply to the majority of the working class during his lifetime and for
   a number of decades afterwards and not to an underclass, not to what
   Marx termed the "lumpenproletariat". As proven above, Bakunin's
   "lumpenproletariat" is not what Marxists mean by the term. If Bakunin
   had meant the same as Marx by the "lumpenproletariat" then this would
   not make sense as the "lumpenproletariat" for Marx were not wage
   workers. This can best be seen when Bakunin argues that the
   International must organise this "flower of the proletariat" and
   conduct economic collective struggle against the capitalist class. In
   his other works (and in the specific essay these quotes are derived
   from) Bakunin stressed the need to organise all workers and peasants
   into unions to fight the state and bosses and his arguments that
   workers associations should not only be the means to fight capitalism
   but also the framework of an anarchist society. Clearly, Sam Dolgoff's
   summary of Bakunin's ideas on this subject is the correct one:

     "Bakunin's Lumpenproletariat . . . was broader than Marx's, since it
     included all the submerged classes: unskilled, unemployed, and poor
     workers, poor peasant proprietors, landless agricultural labourers,
     oppressed racial minorities, alienated and idealistic youth,
     declasse intellectuals, and 'bandits' (by whom Bakunin meant
     insurrectionary 'Robin Hoods' like Pugachev, Stenka Razin, and the
     Italian Carbonari)." ["Introduction", Bakunin on Anarchism, pp.
     13-4]

   Moreover, the issue is clouded by translation issues as well. As Mark
   Leier notes Bakunin "rarely used the word 'lumpenproletariat.' While he
   does use the French word canaille, this is better translated as 'mob'
   or 'rabble' . . . When Bakunin does talk about the canaille or rabble,
   he usually refers not to the lumpenproletariat as such but to the
   poorer sections of the working class . . . While we might translate
   'destitute proletariat' as 'lumpenproletariat,' Bakunin himself . . .
   is referring to a portion of the proletariat and the peasantry, not the
   lumpenproletariat." [ Bakunin: The Creative Passion, p. 221]

   Nor is Stack the only Marxist to make such arguments as regards
   Bakunin. Paul Thomas quotes Bakunin arguing that the working class
   "remains socialist without knowing it" because of "the very force of
   its position" and "all the conditions of its material existence" and
   then, incredulously, adds that "[i]t is for this reason that Bakunin
   turned away from the proletariat and its scientific socialism" towards
   the peasantry. [Karl Marx and the Anarchists, p. 291] A more distorted
   account of Bakunin's ideas would be hard to find (and there is a lot of
   competition for that particular honour). The quotes Thomas provides are
   from Bakunin's "The Policy of the International" in which he discussed
   his ideas on how the International Working-Men's Association should
   operate (namely "the collective struggle of the workers against the
   bosses"). At the time (and for some time after) Bakunin called himself
   a revolutionary socialist and argued that by class struggle, the worker
   would soon "recognise himself [or herself] to be a revolutionary
   socialist, and he [or she] will act like one." [The Basic Bakunin, p.
   103] As such, the argument that the social position workers are placed
   makes them "socialist without knowing" does not, in fact, imply that
   Bakunin thought they would become Marxists ("scientific socialism")
   and, therefore, he turned against them. Rather, it meant that, for
   Bakunin, anarchist ideas were a product of working class life and it
   was a case of turning instinctive feelings into conscious thought by
   collective struggle. As noted above, Bakunin did not "turn away" from
   these ideas nor the proletariat. Indeed, Bakunin held to the importance
   of organising the proletariat (along with artisans and peasants) to the
   end of his life. Quite simply, Thomas is distorting Bakunin's ideas.

   Lastly, we have to point out a certain irony (and hypocrisy) in Marxist
   attacks on Bakunin on this subject. This is because Marx, Engels and
   Lenin held similar views on the corrupted "upper strata" of the working
   class as Bakunin did. Indeed, Marxists have a specific term to describe
   this semi-bourgeois strata of workers, namely the "labour aristocracy."
   Marx, for example, talked about the trade unions in Britain being "an
   aristocratic minority" and the "great mass of workers . . . has long
   been outside" them (indeed, "the most wretched mass has never
   belonged.") [Collected Works, vol. 22, p. 614] Engels also talked about
   "a small, privileged, 'protected' minority" within the working class,
   which he also called "the working-class aristocracy." [Op. Cit., vol.
   27, p. 320 and p. 321] Lenin approvingly quotes Engels arguing that the
   "English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so
   that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming at the
   possession of . . . a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie."
   [quoted by Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 22, p. 283] Like Lenin, Engels
   explained this by the dominant position of Britain within the world
   market. Indeed, Lenin argued that "a section of the British proletariat
   becomes bourgeois." For Lenin, imperialist "superprofits" make it
   "possible to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of the
   labour aristocracy." This "stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, or the
   labour aristocracy, who are quite philistine in their mode of life, in
   the size of their earnings and in their entire outlook . . . are the
   real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement, the
   labour lieutenants of the capitalist class." [Op. Cit., p. 284 and p.
   194]

   As can be seen, this is similar to Bakunin's ideas and, ironically
   enough, nearly identical to Stack's distortion of those ideas
   (particularly in the case of Marx). However, only someone with a desire
   to lie would suggest that any of them dismissed the working class as
   their "agent of change" based on this (selective) quoting.
   Unfortunately, that is what Stack does with Bakunin. Ultimately,
   Stack's comments seem hypocritical in the extreme attacking Bakunin
   while remaining quiet on the near identical comments of his heroes.

   It should be noted that this analysis is confirmed by non-anarchists
   who have actually studied Bakunin. Wayne Thorpe, an academic who
   specialises in syndicalism, presents an identical summary of Bakunin's
   ideas on this matter. ["The Workers Themselves", p. 280] Marxist
   selective quoting not withstanding, for Bakunin (as another academic
   noted) "it seemed self-evident that the revolution, even in Eastern
   Europe, required the unity of peasantry and city workers because of the
   latter's more advanced consciousness." The notion that Bakunin stressed
   the role of the lumpenproletariat is a "popular stereotype" but is one
   "more distorted by its decisive omissions than in what it says."
   "Marx", he correctly summarised, "accented the revolutionary role of
   the urban proletariat and tended to deprecate the peasantry, while
   Bakunin, although accepting the vanguard role of the proletariat in the
   revolution, felt that the peasantry, too, approached correctly, also
   had great potential for revolution." [Alvin W. Gouldner, "Marx's Last
   Battle: Bakunin and the First International", pp. 853-884, Theory and
   Society, Vol. 11, No. 6, p. 871, p. 869 and p. 869] This flowed from
   Bakunin's materialist politics:

     "Not restricting the revolution to those societies in which an
     advanced industrialism had produced a massive urban proletariat,
     Bakunin observed sensibly that the class composition of the
     revolution was bound to differ in industrially advanced Western
     Europe and in Eastern European where the economy was still largely
     agricultural . . . This is a far cry, then, from the Marxist
     stereotype of Bakunin-the-anarchist who relied exclusively on the
     backward peasantry and ignored the proletariat." [Op. Cit., p. 870]

   All in all, once a historic and textual context is placed on Bakunin's
   words, it is clear which social class was considered as the social
   revolution's "agents of change": the working class (i.e. wage workers,
   artisans, peasants and so on). In this, other revolutionary anarchists
   follow him. Looking at Kropotkin we find a similar perspective to
   Bakunin's. In his first political work, Kropotkin explicitly raised the
   question of "where our activity be directed" and answered it
   "categorically" - "unquestionably among the peasantry and urban
   workers." In fact, he "consider[ed] this answer the fundamental
   position in our practical program." This was because "the insurrection
   must proceed among the peasantry and urban workers themselves" if it
   were to succeed. As such, revolutionaries "must not stand outside the
   people but among them, must serve not as a champion of some alien
   opinions worked out in isolation, but only as a more distinct, more
   complete expression of the demands of the people themselves." [Selected
   Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, pp. 85-6]

   That was in 1873. Nearly 30 years later, Kropotkin expressed identical
   opinions stating that he "did not need to overrate the qualities of the
   workers in order to espouse the cause of the social, predominantly
   workers' revolution." The need was to "forge solidarity" between
   workers and it was "precisely to awaken this solidarity - without which
   progress would be difficult - that we must work to insure that the
   syndicates and the trade unions not be pushed aside by the bourgeois."
   The social position of the working class people ensured their key role
   in the revolution: "Being exploited today at the bottom of the social
   ladder, it is to his advantage to demand equality. He has never ceased
   demanding it, he has fought for it and will fight for it again, whereas
   the bourgeois . . . thinks it is to his advantage to maintain
   inequality." Unsurprisingly, Kropotkin stressed that "I have always
   preached active participation in the workers' movement, in the
   revolutionary workers' movement" [Op. Cit., p. 299, pp. 299-300, p. 300
   and p. 304]

   Much the same can be said for the likes of Goldman, Berkman, Malatesta
   and so on - as even a basic familiarity with their writings and
   activism would confirm. Of all the major anarchist thinkers, it could
   be objected that Murray Bookchin fits Stack's distortions. After all,
   he did attack "The Myth of the Proletariat" as the agent of
   revolutionary change, arguing that "the traditional class struggle
   ceases to have revolutionary implications; it reveals itself as the
   physiology of the prevailing society, not as the labour pains of
   birth." Yet, even here, Bookchin explicitly argued that he made "no
   claims that a social revolution is possible without the participation
   of the industrial proletariat" and noted that he "tries to show how the
   proletariat can be won to the revolutionary movement by stressing
   issues that concern quality of life and work." Thus "class struggle
   does not centre around material exploitation alone" but has a wider
   understanding which cannot be reduced to "a single class defined by its
   relationship to the means of production." Like other anarchists, he saw
   social change coming from the oppressed, as "the alienated and
   oppressed sectors of society are now the majority of the people." In
   other words, for Bookchin (if not other anarchists) expressions like
   "class struggle" simply "fail to encompass the cultural and spiritual
   revolt that is taking place along with the economic struggle."
   [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 117, p. 150, p. 151 and p. 152]

   So Bookchin's apparent rejection of class struggle and the
   "proletariat" is not, on closer reading, any such thing. He urged a
   wider form of struggle, one which includes issues such as hierarchy,
   oppression, ecological matters and so on rather than the exclusive
   concern with economic exploitation and class which many radicals
   (usually Marxists) focus on. Somewhat ironically, it should be noted
   that this "rejection" in part flowed from Bookchin's own past in the
   Stalinist and Trotskyist movements, both of which tended to idealise
   the industrial worker and limit "proletarian" to that specific
   sub-section of the working class. Bookchin himself expressed this
   blinkered perspective when he "dispose[d] of the notion that anyone is
   a 'proletarian' who has nothing to sell but his labour power" as Marx
   and Engels considered that class as "reaching its most advanced form in
   the industrial proletariat, which corresponded to the most advanced
   form of capital." [Op. Cit., p. 115fn] Sadly, Bookchin reinforced this
   debased notion of working class and our struggle in the very process of
   trying to overcome it. Yet he always argued for a wider concept of
   social struggle which included, but was not limited to, economic class
   and exploitation and, as a result, included all sections of the working
   class and not just workers in large-scale industry. In this he followed
   a long anarchist tradition.

   To conclude, for anarchists, the social revolution will be made by the
   working class ("Anarchists, like Socialists, usually believe in the
   doctrine of class war." [Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom, p. 38]).
   However, as British anarchist Benjamin Franks summarises, "[b]ecause
   anarchists hold to a broader view of the working class, which includes
   the lumpenproletariat, they have been accused of promoting this section
   above others. This standard marxist interpretation of anarchism is
   inaccurate; anarchists simply include the lumpenproletariat as part of
   the working class, rather than exclude or exalt it." [Rebel Alliances,
   p. 168] Ultimately, for anyone to claim that Bakunin, for any social
   anarchist, rejects the working class as an agent of social change
   simply shows their ignorance of the politics they are trying to attack.

H.2.8 What is the relationship of anarchism to syndicalism?

   One of the most common Marxist techniques when they discuss anarchism
   is to contrast the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin to the revolutionary
   syndicalists. The argument runs along the lines that "classical"
   anarchism is individualistic and rejects working class organisation and
   power while syndicalism is a step forward from it (i.e. a step closer
   to Marxism). Sadly, such arguments simply show the ignorance of the
   author rather than any form of factual basis. When the ideas of
   revolutionary anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin are compared to
   revolutionary syndicalism, the similarities are soon discovered.

   This kind of argument can be found in Pat Stack's essay "Anarchy in the
   UK?" After totally distorting the ideas of anarchists like Bakunin and
   Kropotkin, Stack argues that anarcho-syndicalists "tended to look to
   the spontaneity and anti-statism of anarchism, the economic and
   materialist analysis of Marxism, and the organisational tools of trade
   unionism. Practically every serious anarchist organisation came from or
   leant on this tradition . . . The huge advantage they had over other
   anarchists was their understanding of the power of the working class,
   the centrality of the point of production (the workplace) and the need
   for collective action." [Socialist Review, no. 246]

   Given that Stack's claims that anarchists reject the "need for
   collective action," do not understand "the power of the working class"
   and the "centrality" of the workplace are simply inventions, it would
   suggest that Stack's "huge advantage" does not, in fact, exist and is
   pure nonsense. Bakunin, Kropotkin and all revolutionary anarchists, as
   proven in [23]section H.2.2, already understood all this and based
   their politics on the need for collective working class struggle at the
   point of production. As such, by contrasting anarcho-syndicalism with
   anarchism (as expressed by the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin) Stack
   simply shows his utter and total ignorance of his subject matter.

   Moreover, if he bothered to read the works of the likes of Bakunin and
   Kropotkin he would discover that many of their ideas were identical to
   those of revolutionary syndicalism. For example, Bakunin argued that
   the "organisation of the trade sections, their federation in the
   International, and their representation by Chambers of Labour, . . .
   [allow] the workers . . . [to] combin[e] theory and practice . . .
   [and] bear in themselves the living germs of the social order, which is
   to replace the bourgeois world. They are creating not only the ideas
   but also the facts of the future itself." [quoted by Rudolf Rocker,
   Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 50] Like the syndicalists, he argued "the
   natural organisation of the masses . . . is organisation based on the
   various ways that their various types of work define their day-to-day
   life; it is organisation by trade association" and once "every
   occupation . . . is represented within the International [Working-Men's
   Association], its organisation, the organisation of the masses of the
   people will be complete." Moreover, Bakunin stressed that the working
   class had "but a single path, that of emancipation through practical
   action which meant "workers' solidarity in their struggle against the
   bosses" by "trades-unions, organisation, and the federation of
   resistance funds" [The Basic Bakunin, p. 139 and p. 103]

   Like the syndicalists, Bakunin stressed working class self-activity and
   control over the class struggle:

     "Toilers count no longer on anyone but yourselves. Do not demoralise
     and paralyse your growing strength by being duped into alliances
     with bourgeois Radicalism . . . Abstain from all participation in
     bourgeois Radicalism and organise outside of it the forces of the
     proletariat. The bases of this organisation are already completely
     given: they are the workshops and the federation of workshops, the
     creation of fighting funds, instruments of struggle against the
     bourgeoisie, and their federation, not only national, but
     international.

     "And when the hour of revolution sounds, you will proclaim the
     liquidation of the State and of bourgeois society, anarchy, that is
     to say the true, frank people's revolution . . . and the new
     organisation from below upwards and from the circumference to the
     centre."
     [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx, pp. 120-1]

   Like the later syndicalists, Bakunin was in favour of a general strike
   as a means of bringing about a social revolution. As "strikes spread
   from one place to another, they come close to turning into a general
   strike. And with the ideas of emancipation that now hold sway over the
   proletariat, a general strike can result only in a great cataclysm
   which forces society to shed its old skin." He raised the possibility
   that this could "arrive before the proletariat is sufficiently
   organised" and dismissed it because the strikes expressed the
   self-organisation of the workers for the "necessities of the struggle
   impel the workers to support one another" and the "more active the
   struggle becomes . . . the stronger and more extensive this federation
   of proletarians must become." Thus strikes "indicate a certain
   collective strength already" and "each strike becomes the point of
   departure for the formation of new groups." He rejected the idea that a
   revolution could be "arbitrarily" made by "the most powerful
   associations." Rather they were produced by "the force of
   circumstances." As with the syndicalists, Bakunin argued that not all
   workers needed to be in unions before a general strike or revolution
   could take place. A minority (perhaps "one worker in ten") needed to be
   organised and they would influence the rest so ensuring "at critical
   moments" the majority would "follow the International's lead." [The
   Basic Bakunin, pp. 149-50, p. 109 and p. 139]

   As with the syndicalists, the new society would be organised "by free
   federation, from below upwards, of workers' associations, industrial as
   well as agricultural . . . in districts and municipalities at first;
   federation of these into regions, of the regions into nations, and the
   nations into a fraternal Internationalism." Moreover, "capital,
   factories, all the means of production and raw material" would be owned
   by "the workers' organisations" while the land would be given "to those
   who work it with their own hands." [quoted by Kenafick, Op. Cit., p.
   241 and p. 240] Compare this to the syndicalist CGT's 1906 Charter of
   Amiens which declared "the trade union today is an organisation of
   resistance" but "in the future [it will] be the organisation of
   production and distribution, the basis of social reorganisation."
   [quoted by Wayne Thorpe, "The Workers Themselves", p. 201]

   The similarities with revolutionary syndicalism could not be clearer.
   Little wonder that all serious historians see the obvious similarities
   between anarcho-syndicalism and Bakunin's anarchism. For example,
   George R. Esenwein's (in his study of early Spanish anarchism) comments
   that syndicalism "had deep roots in the Spanish libertarian tradition.
   It can be traced to Bakunin's revolutionary collectivism." He also
   notes that the class struggle was "central to Bakunin's theory."
   [Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898,
   p. 209 and p. 20] Caroline Cahm, likewise, points to "the basic
   syndicalist ideas of Bakunin" and that he "argued that trade union
   organisation and activity in the International [Working Men's
   Association] were important in the building of working-class power in
   the struggle against capital . . . He also declared that trade union
   based organisation of the International would not only guide the
   revolution but also provide the basis for the organisation of the
   society of the future." Indeed, he "believed that trade unions had an
   essential part to play in the developing of revolutionary capacities of
   the workers as well as building up the organisation of the masses for
   revolution." [Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, p.
   219, p. 215 and p. 216] Paul Avrich, in his essay "The Legacy of
   Bakunin," agreed. "Bakunin," he stated, "perhaps even more than
   Proudhon, was a prophet of revolutionary syndicalism, who believed that
   a free federation of trade unions would be the 'living germs of a new
   social order which is to replace the bourgeois world.'" [Anarchist
   Portraits, pp. 14-15] Bertrand Russell noted that "[h]ardly any of
   these ideas [associated with syndicalism] are new: almost all are
   derived from the Bakunist [sic!] section of the old International" and
   that this was "often recognised by Syndicalists themselves." [Roads to
   Freedom, p. 52] The syndicalists, notes Wayne Thorpe, "identified the
   First International with its federalist wing . . . [r]epresented . . .
   initially by the Proudhonists and later and more influentially by the
   Bakuninists." [Op. Cit., p. 2]

   Needless to say, anarchists agree with this perspective. Arthur
   Lehning, for example, summarises the anarchist perspective when he
   commented that "Bakunin's collectivist anarchism . . . ultimately
   formed the ideological and theoretical basis of anarcho-syndicalism."
   ["Introduction", Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 29] Anarchist
   academic David Berry also notes that "anarchist syndicalist were keen
   to establish a lineage with Bakunin . . . the anarchist syndicalism of
   the turn of the century was a revival of a tactic" associated with "the
   Bakuninist International." [A History of the French Anarchist Movement,
   1917-1945, p. 17] Another, Mark Leier, points out that "the Wobblies
   drew heavily on anarchist ideas pioneered by Bakunin." [Bakunin: The
   Creative Passion, p. 298] Kropotkin argued that syndicalism "is nothing
   other than the rebirth of the International - federalist, worker,
   Latin." [quoted by Martin A. Miller, Kropotkin, p. 176] Malatesta
   stated in 1907 that he had "never ceased to urge the comrades into that
   direction which the syndicalists, forgetting the past, call new, even
   though it was already glimpsed and followed, in the International, by
   the first of the anarchists." [The Anarchist Reader, p. 221] Little
   wonder that Rudolf Rocker stated in his classic introduction to the
   subject that anarcho-syndicalism was "a direct continuation of those
   social aspirations which took shape in the bosom of the First
   International and which were best understood and most strongly held by
   the libertarian wing of the great workers' alliance."
   [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 54] Murray Bookchin just stated the obvious:

     "Long before syndicalism became a popular term in the French labour
     movement of the late [eighteen]nineties, it already existed in the
     Spanish labour movement of the early seventies. The
     anarchist-influenced Spanish Federation of the old IWMA was . . .
     distinctly syndicalist." ["Looking Back at Spain," pp. 53-96,
     Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), The Radical Papers, p. 67]

   Perhaps, in the face of such evidence (and the writings of Bakunin
   himself), Marxists could claim that the sources we quote are either
   anarchists or "sympathetic" to anarchism. To counter this is very easy,
   we need only quote Marx and Engels. Marx attacked Bakunin for thinking
   that the "working class . . . must only organise themselves by
   trades-unions" and "not occupy itself with politics." Engels argued
   along the same lines, having a go at the anarchists because in the
   "Bakuninist programme a general strike is the lever employed by which
   the social revolution is started" and that they admitted "this required
   a well-formed organisation of the working class" (i.e. a trade union
   federation). Indeed, he summarised Bakunin's strategy as being to
   "organise, and when all the workers, hence the majority, are won over,
   dispose all the authorities, abolish the state and replace it with the
   organisation of the International." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism
   and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 48, p. 132, p. 133 and p. 72] Ignoring the
   misrepresentations of Marx and Engels about the ideas of their enemies,
   we can state that they got the basic point of Bakunin's ideas - the
   centrality of trade union organisation and struggle as well as the use
   of strikes and the general strike. Therefore, you do not have to read
   Bakunin to find out the similarities between his ideas and syndicalism,
   you can read Marx and Engels. Clearly, most Marxist critiques of
   anarchism have not even done that!

   Latter anarchists, needless to say, supported the syndicalist movement
   and, moreover, drew attention to its anarchist roots. Emma Goldman
   noted that in the First International "Bakunin and the Latin workers"
   forged ahead "along industrial and Syndicalist lines" and stated that
   syndicalism "is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism" and
   that "accounts for the presence of so many Anarchists in the
   Syndicalist movement. Like Anarchism, Syndicalism prepares the workers
   along direct economic lines, as conscious factors in the great
   struggles of to-day, as well as conscious factors in the task of
   reconstructing society." After seeing syndicalist ideas in action in
   France in 1900, she "immediately began to propagate Syndicalist ideas."
   The "most powerful weapon" for liberation was "the conscious,
   intelligent, organised, economic protest of the masses through direct
   action and the general strike." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 89, p. 91, p. 90
   and p. 60]

   Kropotkin argued anarchist communism "wins more and more ground among
   those working-men who try to get a clear conception as to the
   forthcoming revolutionary action. The syndicalist and trade union
   movements, which permit the workingmen to realise their solidarity and
   to feel the community of their interests better than any election,
   prepare the way for these conceptions." [Anarchism, p. 174] His support
   for anarchist participation in the labour movement was strong,
   considering it a key method of preparing for a revolution and spreading
   anarchist ideas amongst the working classes: "The syndicat is
   absolutely necessary. It is the sole force of the workers which
   continues the direct struggle against capital without turning to
   parliamentarism." [quoted by Miller, Op. Cit., p. 177]

   "Revolutionary Anarchist Communist propaganda within the Labour
   Unions," Kropotkin stressed, "had always been a favourite mode of
   action in the Federalist or 'Bakuninist' section of the International
   Working Men's Association. In Spain and in Italy it had been especially
   successful. Now it was resorted to, with evident success, in France and
   Freedom [the British Anarchist paper he helped create in 1886] eagerly
   advocated this sort of propaganda." [Act For Yourselves, pp. 119-20]
   Caroline Cahm notes in her excellent account of Kropotkin's ideas
   between 1872 and 1886, he "was anxious to revive the International as
   an organisation for aggressive strike action to counteract the
   influence of parliamentary socialists on the labour movement." This
   resulted in Kropotkin advocating a "remarkable fusion of anarchist
   communist ideas with both the bakuninist [sic!] internationalist views
   adopted by the Spanish Federation and the syndicalist ideas developed
   in the Jura Federation in the 1870s." This included seeing the
   importance of revolutionary labour unions, the value of the strikes as
   a mode of direct action and syndicalist action developing solidarity.
   "For Kropotkin," she summarises, "revolutionary syndicalism represented
   a revival of the great movement of the Anti-authoritarian International
   . . . It seems likely that he saw in it the [strikers International]
   which he had advocated earlier." [Op. Cit., p. 257 and p. 268]

   Clearly, any one claiming that there is a fundamental difference
   between anarchism and syndicalism is talking nonsense. Syndicalist
   ideas were being argued by the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin before
   syndicalism emerged in the French CGT in the 1890s as a clearly
   labelled revolutionary theory. Rather than being in conflict, the ideas
   of syndicalism find their roots in the ideas of Bakunin and "classical"
   anarchism. This would be quickly seen if the actual writings of Bakunin
   and Kropotkin were consulted. There are, of course, differences between
   anarchism and syndicalism, but they are not those usually listed by
   Marxists ([24]section J.3.9 discusses these differences and, as will
   quickly be discovered, they are not based on a rejection of working
   class organisation, direct action, solidarity and collective
   struggle!).

   Ultimately, claims like Pat Stack's simply show how unfamiliar the
   author is with the ideas they are pathetically attempting to critique.
   Anarchists from Bakunin onwards shared most of the same ideas as
   syndicalism (which is unsurprising as most of the ideas of
   anarcho-syndicalism have direct roots in the ideas of Bakunin). In
   other words, for Stack, the "huge advantage" anarcho-syndicalists have
   "over other anarchists" is that they, in fact, share the same
   "understanding of the power of the working class, the centrality of the
   point of production (the workplace) and the need for collective
   action"! This, in itself, shows the bankruptcy of Stack's claims and
   those like it.

H.2.9 Do anarchists have "liberal" politics?

   Another assertion by Marxists is that anarchists have "liberal"
   politics or ideas. For example, one Marxist argues that the "programme
   with which Bakunin armed his super-revolutionary vanguard called for
   the 'political, economic and social equalisation of classes and
   individuals of both sexes, beginning with the abolition of the right of
   inheritance.' This is liberal politics, implying nothing about the
   abolition of capitalism." [Derek Howl, "The Legacy of Hal Draper," pp.
   137-49, International Socialism, no. 52, p. 148]

   That Howl is totally distorting Bakunin's ideas can quickly be seen by
   looking at the whole of the programme. The passage quoted is from item
   2 of the "Programme of the Alliance." Strangely Howle fails to quote
   the end of that item, namely when it states this "equalisation" was "in
   pursuance of the decision reached by the last working men's Congress in
   Brussels, the land, the instruments of work and all other capital may
   become the collective property of the whole of society and be utilised
   only by the workers, in other words by the agricultural and industrial
   associations." If this was not enough to indicate the abolition of
   capitalism, item 4 states that the Alliance "repudiates all political
   action whose target is anything except the triumph of the workers'
   cause over Capital." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174]

   Howl's dishonesty is clear. Bakunin explicitly argued for the abolition
   of capitalism in the same item Howl (selectively) quotes from. If the
   socialisation of land and capital under the control of workers'
   associations is not the abolition of capitalism, we wonder what is!

   Equally as dishonest as this quoting out of context is Howl's
   non-mention of the history of the expression "political, economic and
   social equalisation of classes and individuals of both sexes." After
   Bakunin sent the Alliance programme to the General Council of the
   International Workingmen's Association, he received a letter date March
   9, 1869 from Marx which stated that the term "the equalisation of
   classes" "literally interpreted" would mean "harmony of capital and
   labour" as "persistently preached by the bourgeois socialists." The
   letter argued that it was "not the logically impossible 'equalisation
   of classes', but the historically necessary, superseding 'abolition of
   classes'" which was the "true secret of the proletarian movement" and
   which "forms the great aim of the International Working Men's
   Association." Significantly, the letter adds the following:

     "Considering, however, the context in which that phrase
     'equalisation of classes' occurs, it seems to be a mere slip of the
     pen, and the General Council feels confident that you will be
     anxious to remove from your program an expression which offers such
     a dangerous misunderstanding." [Collected Works, vol. 21, p. 46]

   And, given the context, Marx was right. The phrase "equalisation of
   classes" placed in the context of the political, economic and social
   equalisation of individuals obviously implies the abolition of classes.
   The logic is simple. If both worker and capitalist shared the same
   economic and social position then wage labour would not exist (in fact,
   it would be impossible as it is based on social and economic
   inequality) and so class society would not exist. Similarly, if the
   tenant and the landlord were socially equal then the landlord would
   have no power over the tenant, which would be impossible. Bakunin
   agreed with Marx on the ambiguity of the term and the Alliance changed
   its Programme to call for "the final and total abolition of classes and
   the political, economic and social equalisation of individuals of
   either sex." [Bakunin, Op. Cit. p. 174] This change ensured the
   admittance of the Alliance sections into the International Workingmen's
   Association (although this did not stop Marx, like his followers,
   bringing up this "mere slip of the pen" years later). However, Howl
   repeating the changed phrase "equalisation of classes" out of context
   helps discredit anarchism and so it is done.

   Simply put, anarchists are not liberals. We are well aware of the fact
   that without equality, liberty is impossible except for the rich. As
   Nicolas Walter put it, "[l]ike liberals, anarchists want freedom; like
   socialists, anarchists want equality. But we are not satisfied by
   liberalism alone or by socialism alone. Freedom without equality means
   that the poor and weak are less free than the rich and strong, and
   equality without freedom means that we are all slaves together. Freedom
   and equality are not contradictory, but complementary; in place of the
   old polarisation of freedom versus equality - according to which we are
   told that more freedom equals less equality, and more equality equals
   less freedom - anarchists point out that in practice you cannot have
   one without the other. Freedom is not genuine if some people are too
   poor or too weak to enjoy it, and equality is not genuine is some
   people are ruled by others." [About Anarchism, p. 29] Clearly,
   anarchists do not have liberal politics. Quite the reverse, as we
   subject it to extensive critique from a working class perspective.

   To the claim that anarchism "combines a socialist critique of
   capitalism with a liberal critique of socialism," anarchists reply that
   it is mistaken. [Paul Thomas, Karl Marx and the Anarchists, p. 7]
   Rather, anarchism is simply a socialist critique of both capitalism and
   the state. Freedom under capitalism is fatally undermined by inequality
   - it simply becomes the freedom to pick a master. This violates liberty
   and equality, as does the state. "Any State at all," argued Bakunin,
   "no matter what kind, is a domination and exploitation. It is a
   negation of Socialism, which wants an equitable human society delivered
   from all tutelage, from all authority and political domination as well
   as economic exploitation." [quoted by Kenafick, Op. Cit., pp. 95-6] As
   such, state structures violate not only liberty but also equality.
   There is no real equality in power between, say, the head of the
   government and one of the millions who may, or may not, have voted for
   them. As the Russian Revolution proved, there can be no meaningful
   equality between a striking worker and the "socialist" political police
   sent to impose the will of the state, i.e., the "socialist" ruling
   elite.

   This means that if anarchists are concerned about freedom (both
   individual and collective) it is not because we are influenced by
   liberalism. Quite the reverse, as liberalism happily tolerates
   hierarchy and the restrictions of liberty implied by private property,
   wage labour and the state. As Bakunin argued, capitalism turns "the
   worker into a subordinate, a passive and obedient servant." [The
   Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 188] So anarchism rejects
   liberalism (although, as Bakunin put it, "[i]f socialism disputes
   radicalism, this is hardly to reverse it but rather to advance it."
   [The Basic Bakunin, p. 87]). Therefore, anarchism rejects liberalism,
   not because it supports the idea of freedom, but precisely because it
   does not go far enough and fails to understand that without equality,
   freedom is little more than freedom for the master. In fact, as we
   argue in [25]section H.4, it is Marxism itself which has a distinctly
   liberal perspective of freedom, seeing it restricted by association
   rather than association being an expression of it.

   Lastly, a few words on the mentality that could suggest that anarchist
   concern for liberty means that it is a form of liberalism. Rather than
   suggest the bankruptcy of anarchism it, in fact, suggests the
   bankruptcy of the politics of the person making the accusation. After
   all, the clear implication is that a concern with individual,
   collective and social freedom is alien to socialist ideas. It also
   strikes at the heart of socialism - its concern for equality - as it
   clearly implies that some have more power (namely the right to suppress
   the liberty of others) than the rest. As such, it suggests a
   superficial understanding of real socialism (see also our discussion of
   Marxist claims about anarchist "elitism" in [26]section H.2.11).

   To argue that a concern for freedom means "liberalism" (or, equally,
   "individualism") indicates that the person is not a socialist. After
   all, a concern that every individual controls their daily lives (i.e.
   to be free) means a wholehearted support for collective self-management
   of group affairs. It means a vision of a revolution (and
   post-revolutionary society) based on direct working class participation
   and management of society from below upwards. To dismiss this vision by
   dismissing the principles which inspire it as "liberalism" means to
   support rule from above by the "enlightened" elite (i.e. the party) and
   the hierarchical state structures. It means arguing for party power,
   not class power, as liberty is seen as a danger to the revolution and
   so the people must be protected against the
   "petty-bourgeois"/"reactionary" narrowness of the people (to requote
   Bakunin, "every state, even the pseudo-People's State concocted by Mr.
   Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from below,
   through a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals who imagine
   that they know what the people need and want better than do the people
   themselves." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 338]). Rather than seeing free
   debate of ideas and mass participation as a source of strength, it sees
   it as a source of "bad influences" which the masses must be protected
   from.

   Moreover, it suggests a total lack of understanding of the difficulties
   that a social revolution will face. Unless it is based on the active
   participation of the majority of a population, any revolution will
   fail. The construction of socialism, of a new society, will face
   thousands of unexpected problems and seek to meet the needs of millions
   of individuals, thousands of communities and hundreds of cultures.
   Without the individuals and groups within that society being in a
   position to freely contribute to that constructive task, it will simply
   wither under the bureaucratic and authoritarian rule of a few party
   leaders. As such, individual liberties are an essential aspect of
   genuine social reconstruction - without freedom of association,
   assembly, organisation, speech and so on, the active participation of
   the masses will be replaced by an isolated and atomised collective of
   individuals subjected to autocratic rule from above.

   As ex-anarchist turned Bolshevik Victor Serge concluded in the late
   1930s (when it was far too late) the "fear of liberty, which is the
   fear of the masses, marks almost the entire course of the Russian
   Revolution. If it is possible to discover a major lesson, capable of
   revitalising Marxism . . . one might formulate it in these terms:
   Socialism is essentially democratic -- the word, 'democratic', being
   used here in its libertarian sense." [The Serge-Trotsky Papers, p. 181]

   Ultimately, as Rudolf Rocker suggested, the "urge for social justice
   can only develop properly and be effective, when it grows out of man's
   sense of personal freedom and it based on that. In other words
   Socialism will be free, or it will not be at all. In its recognition of
   this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of
   Anarchism." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 14]

H.2.10 Are anarchists against leadership?

   It is a common assertion by Marxists that anarchists reject the idea of
   "leadership" and so think in terms of a totally spontaneous revolution.
   This is also generally understood to imply that anarchists do not see
   the need for revolutionaries to organise together to influence the
   class struggle in the here and now. Hence the British SWP's Duncan
   Hallas:

     "That an organisation of socialist militants is necessary is common
     ground on the left, a few anarchist purists apart. But what kind of
     organisation? One view, widespread amongst newly radicalised
     students and young workers, is that of the libertarians . . . [They
     have] hostility to centralised, co-ordinated activity and profound
     suspicion of anything smacking of 'leadership.' On this view nothing
     more than a loose federation of working groups is necessary or
     desirable. The underlying assumptions are that centralised
     organisations inevitably undergo bureaucratic degeneration and that
     the spontaneous activities of working people are the sole and
     sufficient basis for the achievement of socialism . . . some
     libertarians draw the conclusion that a revolutionary socialist
     party is a contradiction in terms. This, of course, is the
     traditional anarcho-syndicalist position." [Towards a revolutionary
     socialist party, p. 39]

   Ignoring the usual patronising references to the age and experience of
   non-Leninists, this argument can be faulted on many levels. Firstly,
   while libertarians do reject centralised structures, it does not mean
   we reject co-ordinated activity. This may be a common Marxist argument,
   but it is a straw man one. Secondly, anarchists do not reject the idea
   of "leadership." We simply reject the idea of hierarchical leadership.
   Thirdly, while all anarchists do think that a "revolutionary socialist
   party" is a contradiction in terms, it does not mean that we reject the
   need for revolutionary organisations (i.e. organisations of
   anarchists). While opposing centralised and hierarchical political
   parties, anarchists have long saw the need for anarchist groups and
   federations to discuss and spread our ideas and influence. We will
   discuss each issue in turn.

   The first argument is the least important. For Marxists, co-ordination
   equals centralism and to reject centralisation means to reject
   co-ordination of joint activity. For anarchists, co-ordination does not
   each centralism or centralisation. This is why anarchism stresses
   federation and federalism as the means of co-ordinating joint activity.
   Under a centralised system, the affairs of all are handed over to a
   handful of people at the centre. Their decisions are then binding on
   the mass of the members of the organisation whose position is simply
   that of executing the orders of those whom the majority elect. This
   means that power rests at the top and decisions flow from the top
   downwards. As such, the "revolutionary" party simply mimics the very
   society it claims to oppose (see [27]section H.5.6) as well as being
   extremely ineffective (see [28]section H.5.8)

   In a federal structure, in contrast, decisions flow from the bottom up
   by means of councils of elected, mandated and recallable delegates. In
   fact, we discover anarchists like Bakunin and Proudhon arguing for
   elected, mandated and recallable delegates rather than for
   representatives in their ideas of how a free society worked years
   before the Paris Commune applied them in practice. The federal
   structure exists to ensure that any co-ordinated activity accurately
   reflects the decisions of the membership. As such, anarchists "do not
   deny the need for co-ordination between groups, for discipline, for
   meticulous planning, and for unity in action. But they believe that
   co-ordination, discipline, planning, and unity in action must be
   achieved voluntarily, by means of a self-discipline nourished by
   conviction and understanding, not by coercion and a mindless,
   unquestioning obedience to orders from above." This means we
   "vigorously oppose the establishment of an organisational structure
   that becomes an end in itself, of committees that linger on after their
   practical tasks have been completed, of a 'leadership' that reduces the
   'revolutionary' to a mindless robot." [Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity
   Anarchism, p. 139] In other words, co-ordination comes from below
   rather than being imposed from above by a few leaders. To use an
   analogy, federalist co-ordination is the co-ordination created in a
   strike by workers resisting their bosses. It is created by debate
   amongst equals and flows from below upwards. Centralised co-ordination
   is the co-ordination imposed from the top-down by the boss.

   Secondly, anarchists are not against all forms of "leadership." We are
   against hierarchical and institutionalised forms of leadership. In
   other words, of giving power to leaders. This is the key difference, as
   Albert Meltzer explained. "In any grouping some people," he argued, "do
   naturally 'give a lead.' But this should not mean they are a class
   apart. What they always reject is institutionalised leadership. That
   means their supporters become blind followers and the leadership not
   one of example or originality but of unthinking acceptance." Any
   revolutionary in a factory where the majority have no revolutionary
   experience, will at times, "give a lead." However, "no real Anarchist .
   . . would agree to be part of an institutionalised leadership. Neither
   would an Anarchist wait for a lead, but give one." [Anarchism:
   Arguments for and against, p. 58 and p. 59]

   This means, as we argue in [29]section J.3.6, that anarchists seek to
   influence the class struggle as equals. Rather than aim for positions
   of power, anarchists want to influence people by the power of their
   ideas as expressed in the debates that occur in the organisations
   created in the social struggle itself. This is because anarchists
   recognise that there is an unevenness in the level of ideas within the
   working class. This fact is obvious. Some workers accept the logic of
   the current system, others are critical of certain aspects, others
   (usually a minority) are consciously seeking a better society (and are
   anarchists, ecologists, Marxists, etc.) and so on. Only constant
   discussion, the clash of ideas, combined with collective struggle can
   develop political awareness and narrow the unevenness of ideas within
   the oppressed. As Malatesta argued, "[o]nly freedom or the struggle for
   freedom can be the school for freedom." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and
   Ideas, p. 59]

   From this perspective, it follows that any attempt to create an
   institutionalised leadership structure means the end of the
   revolutionary process. Such "leadership" automatically means a
   hierarchical structure, one in which the leaders have power and make
   the decisions for the rest. This just reproduces the old class division
   of labour between those who think and those who act (i.e. between order
   givers and order takers). Rather than the revolutionary masses taking
   power in such a system, it is the "leaders" (i.e. a specific party
   hierarchy) who do so and the masses role becomes, yet again, simply
   that of selecting which boss tells them what to do.

   So the anarchist federation does not reject the need of "leadership" in
   the sense of giving a led, of arguing its ideas and trying to win
   people to them. It does reject the idea that "leadership" should become
   separated from the mass of the people. Simply put, no party, no group
   of leaders have all the answers and so the active participation of all
   is required for a successful revolution. It is not a question of
   organisation versus non-organisation, or "leadership" versus
   non-"leadership" but rather what kind of organisation and the kind of
   leadership.

   Clearly, then, anarchists do not reject or dismiss the importance of
   politically aware minorities organising and spreading their ideas
   within social struggles. As Caroline Cahm summarised in her excellent
   study of Kropotkin's thought, "Kropotkin stressed the role of heroic
   minorities in the preparation for revolution." [Kropotkin and the Rise
   of Revolutionary Anarchism, 1872-86, p. 276] Yet, as John Crump
   correctly argued, the "key words here are in the preparation for
   revolution. By their courage and daring in opposing capitalism and the
   state, anarchist minorities could teach by example and thereby draw
   increasing numbers into the struggle. But Kropotkin was not advocating
   substitutionism; the idea that a minority might carry out the
   revolution in place of the people was as alien to him as the notion
   that a minority would exercise rule after the revolution. In fact,
   Kropotkin recognised that the former would be a prescription for the
   latter." [Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan, p. 9] In
   Kropotkin's own words:

     "The idea of anarchist communism, today represented by feeble
     minorities, but increasingly finding popular expression, will make
     its way among the mass of the people. Spreading everywhere, the
     anarchist groups . . . will take strength from the support they find
     among the people, and will raise the red flag of the revolution . .
     . On that day, what is now the minority will become the People, the
     great mass, and that mass rising against property and the State,
     will march forward towards anarchist communism." [Words of a Rebel,
     p. 75]

   This influence would be gained simply by the correctness of our ideas
   and the validity of our suggestions. This means that anarchists seek
   influence "through advice and example, leaving the people . . . to
   adopt our methods and solutions if these are, or seem to be, better
   than those suggested and carried out by others." As such, any anarchist
   organisation would "strive acquire overwhelming influence in order to
   draw the [revolutionary] movement towards the realisation of our ideas.
   But such influence must be won by doing more and better than others,
   and will be useful if won in that way." This means rejecting "taking
   over command, that is by becoming a government and imposing one's own
   ideas and interests through police methods." [Malatesta, The Anarchist
   Revolution, pp. 108-9]

   Moreover, unlike leading Marxists like Lenin and Karl Kautsky,
   anarchists think that socialist ideas are developed within the class
   struggle rather than outside it by the radical intelligentsia (see
   [30]section H.5). Kropotkin argued that "modern socialism has emerged
   out of the depths of the people's consciousness. If a few thinkers
   emerging from the bourgeoisie have given it the approval of science and
   the support of philosophy, the basis of the idea which they have given
   their own expression has nonetheless been the product of the collective
   spirit of the working people. The rational socialism of the
   International is still today our greatest strength, and it was
   elaborated in working class organisation, under the first influence of
   the masses. The few writers who offered their help in the work of
   elaborating socialist ideas have merely been giving form to the
   aspirations that first saw their light among the workers." [Op. Cit.,
   p. 59] In other words, anarchists are a part of the working class
   (either by birth or by rejecting their previous class background and
   becoming part of it), the part which has generalised its own
   experiences, ideas and needs into a theory called "anarchism" and seeks
   to convince the rest of the validity of its ideas and tactics. This
   would be a dialogue, based on both learning and teaching.

   As such, this means that the relationship between the specifically
   anarchist groups and oppressed peoples in struggle is a two way one. As
   well as trying to influence the social struggle, anarchists also try
   and learn from the class struggle and try to generalise from the
   experiences of their own struggles and the struggles of other working
   class people. Rather than seeing the anarchist group as some sort of
   teacher, anarchists see it as simply part of the social struggle and
   its ideas can and must develop from active participation within that
   struggle. As anarchists agree with Bakunin and reject the idea that
   their organisations should take power on behalf of the masses, it is
   clear that such groups are not imposing alien ideas upon people but
   rather try to clarify the ideas generated by working class people in
   struggle. It is an objective fact that there is a great difference in
   the political awareness within the masses of oppressed people. This
   uneven development means that they do not accept, all at once or in
   their totality, revolutionary ideas. There are layers. Groups of
   people, by ones and twos and then in larger numbers, become interested,
   read literature, talk with others, and create new ideas. The first
   groups that explicitly call their ideas "anarchism" have the right and
   duty to try to persuade others to join them. This is not opposed to the
   self-organisation of the working class, rather it is how working class
   people self-organise.

   Lastly, most anarchists recognise the need to create specifically
   anarchist organisations to spread anarchist ideas and influence the
   class struggle. Suffice to say, the idea that anarchists reject this
   need to organise politically in order to achieve a revolution is not to
   be found in the theory and practice of all the major anarchist thinkers
   nor in the history and current practice of the anarchist movement
   itself. As Leninists themselves, at times, admit. Ultimately, if
   spontaneity was enough to create (and ensure the success of) a social
   revolution then we would be living in a libertarian socialist society.
   The fact that we are not suggests that spontaneity, however important,
   is not enough in itself. This simple fact of history is understood by
   anarchists and we organise ourselves appropriately.

   See [31]section J.3 for more details on what organisations anarchists
   create and their role in anarchist revolutionary theory ([32]Section
   J.3.6, for example, has a fuller discussion of the role of anarchist
   groups in the class struggle). For a discussion of the role of
   anarchists in a revolution, see [33]section J.7.5.

H.2.11 Are anarchists "anti-democratic"?

   One of the common arguments against anarchism is that it is
   "anti-democratic" (or "elitist"). For example, a member of the British
   Socialist Workers Party denounces anarchism for being "necessarily
   deeply anti-democratic" due to its "thesis of the absolute sovereignty
   of the individual ego as against the imposition of any 'authority' over
   it," which, its is claimed, is the "distinctly anarchist concept." This
   position is an "idealist conception" in which "any authority is seen as
   despotic; 'freedom' and 'authority' (and therefore 'freedom' and
   'democracy') are opposites. This presumption of opposition to
   'authority' was fostered by liberalism." This is contrasted with the
   Marxist "materialist understanding of society" in which it "was clear
   that 'authority' is necessary in any society where labour is
   collaborative." [Derek Howl, "The Legacy of Hal Draper," pp. 137-49,
   International Socialism, no. 52, p. 145] Hal Draper is quoted arguing
   that:

     By the 'principle of authority' the consistent anarchist means
     principled opposition to any exercise of authority, including
     opposition to authority derived from the most complete democracy and
     exercised in completely democratic fashion . . . Of all ideologies,
     anarchism is the one most fundamentally anti-democratic in
     principle, since it is not only unalterably hostile to democracy in
     general but particularly to any socialist democracy of the most
     ideal kind that could be imagined."

   Such as argument is, of course, just ridiculous. Indeed, it is flawed
   on so many levels its hard to know where to start. The obvious place is
   the claim that anarchism is the most "fundamentally anti-democratic in
   principle." Now, given that there are fascists, monarchists, supporters
   (like Trotsky) of "party dictatorship" and a host of others who
   advocate minority rule (even by one person) over everyone else, can it
   be argued with a straight face that anarchism is the most
   "anti-democratic" because it argues for the liberty of all? Is the idea
   and practice of absolute monarchy and fascism really more democratic
   than anarchism? Clearly not, although this does indicate the quality of
   this kind of argument. Equally, the notion that liberalism rests on a
   "presumption of opposition to 'authority'" cannot be supported by even
   a casual understanding of the subject. That ideology has always sought
   ways to justify the authority structures of the liberal state not to
   mention the hierarchies produced by capitalist private property. So the
   notion that liberalism is against "authority" is hard to square with
   both its theory and reality.

   Another obvious point is that anarchists do not see any authority as
   "despotic." As we discuss in [34]section H.4, this common Marxist
   assertion is simply not true. Anarchists have always been very clear on
   the fact they reject specific kinds of authority and not "authority" as
   such. In fact, by the term "principal of authority," Bakunin meant
   hierarchical authority, and not all forms of "authority". This explains
   why Kropotkin argued that "the origin of the anarchist conception of
   society" lies in "the criticism" of the "hierarchical organisations and
   the authoritarian conceptions of society" and stressed that anarchism
   "refuses all hierarchical organisation." [Anarchism, p. 158 and p. 137]

   This means, just to state the obvious, that making and sticking by
   collective decisions are not acts of authority. Rather they simply
   expressions of individual autonomy. Clearly in most activities there is
   a need to co-operate with other people. Indeed, living involves the
   "absolute sovereignty of the individual ego" (as if anarchists like
   Bakunin used such terms!) being "restricted" by exercising that
   "sovereignty." Take, for example, playing football. This involves
   finding others who seek to play the game, organising into teams,
   agreeing on rules and so on. All terrible violations of the "absolute
   sovereignty of the individual ego," yet it was precisely the
   "sovereignty" of the "individual" which produced the desire to play the
   game in the first place. What sort of "sovereignty" is it that negates
   itself when it is exercised? Clearly, then, the Marxist "summary" of
   anarchist ideas on this matter, like of many others, is poverty
   stricken.

   And, unsurprisingly enough, we find anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and
   Kropotkin attacking this idea of "the absolute sovereignty of the
   individual ego" in the most severe terms. Indeed, they thought was a
   bourgeois theory which simply existed to justify the continued
   domination and exploitation of working class people by the ruling
   class. Kropotkin quite clearly recognised its anti-individual and
   unfree nature by labelling it "the authoritarian individualism which
   stifles us" and stressing its "narrow-minded, and therefore foolish"
   nature. [Conquest of Bread, p. 130] Similarly, it would do the Marxist
   argument little good if they quoted Bakunin arguing that the "freedom
   of individuals is by no means an individual matter. It is a collective
   matter, a collective product. No individual can be free outside of
   human society or without its co-operation" or that he considered
   "individualism" as a "bourgeois principle." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 46
   and p. 57] He had nothing but contempt for, as he put it, "that
   individualistic, egotistical, malicious and illusory freedom" which was
   "extolled" by all the "schools of bourgeois liberalism." [Michael
   Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 196]

   Perhaps, of course, these two famous anarchists were not, in fact,
   "consistent" anarchists, but that claim is doubtful.

   The notion that anarchism is inherently an extreme form of
   "individualism" seems to be the great assumption of Marxism. Hence the
   continual repetition of this "fact" and the continual attempt to link
   revolutionary anarchism with Stirner's ideas (the only anarchist to
   stress the importance of the "ego"). Thus we find Engels talking about
   "Stirner, the great prophet of contemporary anarchism - Bakunin has
   taken a great deal from him . . . Bakunin blended [Stirner] with
   Proudhon and labelled the blend 'anarchism'" For Marx, "Bakunin has
   merely translated Proudhon's and Stirner's anarchy into the crude
   language of the Tartars." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and
   Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 175 and p. 153] In reality, of course, Stirner
   was essentially unknown to the anarchist movement until his book was
   rediscovered in the late nineteenth century and even then his impact
   was limited. In terms of Bakunin, while his debt to Proudhon is well
   known and obvious, the link with Stirner seems to have existed only in
   the heads of Marx and Engels. As Mark Leier notes, "there is no
   evidence of this . . . Bakunin mentions Stirner precisely once in his
   collected works, and then only in passing . . . as far as can be
   determined, Bakunin had no interest, even a negative one, in Stirner's
   ideas." [Bakunin: The Creative Passion, p. 97] Nor was Proudhon
   influenced by Stirner (it is doubtful he even knew of him) while
   Stirner criticised the French anarchist. Does that mean Stirner is the
   only "consistent" anarchist? Moreover, even in terms of Stirner,
   Marxist diatribes about the "absolute sovereignty of the individual
   ego" fail to note that the egoist himself advocated organisation ("the
   union of egos") and was well aware that it required agreements between
   individuals which, in the abstract, reduced "liberty" (the union
   "offer[s] a greater measure of liberty" while containing a lesser
   amount of "unfreedom" [The Ego and Its Own, p. 308]).

   Anarchism does, of course, derive from the Greek for "without
   authority" or "without rulers" and this, unsurprisingly, informs
   anarchist theory and visions of a better world. This means that
   anarchism is against the "domination of man by man" (and woman by
   woman, woman by man, and so on). However, "[a]s knowledge has
   penetrated the governed masses . . . the people have revolted against
   the form of authority then felt most intolerable. This spirit of revolt
   in the individual and the masses, is the natural and necessary fruit of
   the spirit of domination; the vindication of human dignity, and the
   saviour of social life." Thus "freedom is the necessary preliminary to
   any true and equal human association." [Charlotte Wilson, Anarchist
   Essays, p. 54 and p. 40] In other words, anarchism comes from the
   struggle of the oppressed against their rulers and is an expression of
   individual and social freedom. Anarchism was born from the class
   struggle.

   Taking individual liberty as a good thing, the next question is how do
   free individuals co-operate together in such a way as to ensure their
   continued liberty ("The belief in freedom assumes that human beings can
   co-operate." [Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 442]). This suggests
   that any association must be one of equality between the associating
   individuals. This can only be done when everyone involved takes a
   meaningful role in the decision making process and because of this
   anarchists stress the need for self-government (usually called
   self-management) of both individuals and groups. Self-management within
   free associations and decision making from the bottom-up is the only
   way domination can be eliminated. This is because, by making our own
   decisions ourselves, we automatically end the division of society into
   governors and governed (i.e. end hierarchy). As Anarchism clearly means
   support for freedom and equality, it automatically implies opposition
   to all forms of hierarchical organisation and authoritarian social
   relationship. This means that anarchist support for individual liberty
   does not end, as many Marxists assert, in the denial of organisation or
   collective decision making but rather in support for self-managed
   groups. Only this form of organisation can end the division of society
   into rulers and ruled, oppressor and oppressed, exploiter and exploited
   and create an environment in which individuals can associate without
   denying their freedom and equality.

   Therefore, the positive side of anarchism (which naturally flows from
   its opposition to authority) results in a political theory which argues
   that people must control their own struggles, organisations and affairs
   directly. This means we support mass assemblies and their federation
   via councils of mandated delegates subject to recall if they break
   their mandates (i.e. they act as they see fit, i.e. as politicians or
   bureaucrats, and not as the people who elected them desire). This way
   people directly govern themselves and control their own lives, allowing
   those affected by a decision to have a say in it and so they manage
   their own affairs directly and without hierarchy. Rather than imply an
   "individualism"
   which denies the importance of association and the freedom it can
   generate, anarchism implies an opposition to hierarchy in all its forms
   and the support free association of equals. In other words, anarchism
   can generally be taken to mean support for self-government or
   self-management, both by individuals and by groups.

   In summary, anarchist support for individual liberty incurs a similar
   support for self-managed groups. In such groups, individuals co-operate
   as equals to maximise their liberty. This means, for anarchists,
   Marxists are just confusing co-operation with coercion, agreement with
   authority, association with subordination. Thus the Marxist
   "materialist" concept of authority distorts the anarchist position and,
   secondly, is supra-historical in the extreme. Different forms of
   decision making are lumped together, independent of the various forms
   it may assume. To equate hierarchical and self-managed decision making,
   antagonistic and harmonious forms of organisation, alienated authority
   or authority retained in the hands of those directly affected by it,
   can only be a source of confusion. Rather than being a "materialistic"
   approach, the Marxist one is pure philosophical idealism - the
   postulating of a-historic concepts independently of the individuals and
   societies that generate specific social relationships and ways of
   working together.

   Similarly, it would be churlish to note that Marxists themselves have
   habitually rejected democratic authority when it suited them. Even that
   "higher type of democracy" of the soviets was ignored by the Bolshevik
   party once it was in power. As we discuss in [35]section H.6.1, faced
   with the election of non-Bolshevik majorities to the soviets, Bolshevik
   armed force was used to overthrow the results. In addition, they also
   gerrymanderd soviets once they could not longer count on an electoral
   majority. In the workplace, the Bolsheviks replaced workers' economic
   democracy with "one-man management" appointed from above, by the state,
   armed with "dictatorial power" (see [36]section H.3.14). As discussed
   in [37]section H.3.8, the Bolsheviks generalised their experiences
   exercising power into explicit support for party dictatorship.
   Throughout the 1920s and 30s, Trotsky repeated this conclusion and
   repeated advocated party dictatorship, urging the party to use its
   power to crush opposition in the working class to its rule. For the
   Bolshevik tradition, the power of the party to ignore the wishes of the
   class it claims to represent is a fundamental ideological position.

   So, remember when Lenin or Trotsky argue for "party dictatorship", the
   over-riding of the democratic decisions of the masses by the party, the
   elimination of workers factory committees in favour of appointed
   managers armed with "dictatorial" power or when the Bolshevik disbanded
   soviets with non-Bolshevik majorities, it is anarchism which is
   fundamentally "anti-democratic"! All in all, that anyone can claim that
   anarchism is more "anti-democratic" than Leninism is a joke.

   However, all these anti-democratic acts do fit in nicely with Howl's
   "materialist" Marxist concept that "'authority' is necessary in any
   society where labour is collaborative." Since "authority" is essential
   and all forms of collective decision making are necessarily
   "authoritarian" and involve "subordination," then it clearly does not
   really matter how collectives are organised and how decisions are
   reached. Hence the lack of concern for the liberty of the working
   people subjected to the (peculiarly bourgeois-like) forms of authority
   preferred by Lenin and Trotsky. It was precisely for this reason, to
   differentiate between egalitarian (and so libertarian) forms of
   organisation and decision making and authoritarian ones, that
   anarchists called themselves "anti-authoritarians."

   Even if we ignore all the anti-democratic acts of Bolshevism (or
   justify them in terms of the problems facing the Russian Revolution, as
   most Leninists do), the anti-democratic nature of Leninist ideas still
   come to the fore. The Leninist support for centralised state power
   brings their attack on anarchism as being "anti-democratic" into clear
   perspective and, ultimately, results in the affairs of millions being
   decided upon by a handful of people in the Central Committee of the
   vanguard party. As an example, we will discuss Trotsky's arguments
   against the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine.

   For Trotsky, the Makhnovists were against "Soviet power." This, he
   argued, was simply "the authority of all the local soviets in the
   Ukraine" as they all "recognise the central power which they themselves
   have elected." Consequently, the Makhnovists rejected not only central
   authority but also the local soviets as well. Trotsky also suggested
   that there were no "appointed" persons in Russia as "there is no
   authority in Russia but that which is elected by the whole working
   class and working peasantry. It follows [!] that commanders appointed
   by the central Soviet Government are installed in their positions by
   the will of the working millions." He stressed that one can speak of
   "appointed" persons "only under the bourgeois order, when Tsarist
   officials or bourgeois ministers appointed at their own discretion
   commanders who kept the soldier masses subject to the bourgeois
   classes." When the Makhnovists tried to call the fourth regional
   conference of peasants, workers and partisans to discuss the progress
   of the Civil War in early 1919, Trotsky, unsurprisingly enough,
   "categorically banned" it. With typical elitism, he noted that the
   Makhnovist movement had "its roots in the ignorant masses"! [How the
   Revolution Armed, vol. II, p. 277, p. 280, p. 295 and p. 302]

   In other words, because the Bolshevik government had been given power
   by a national Soviet Congress in the past (and only remained there by
   gerrymandering and disbanding soviets), he (as its representative) had
   the right to ban a conference which would have expressed the wishes of
   millions of workers, peasants and partisans fighting for the
   revolution! The fallacious nature of his arguments is easily seen.
   Rather than executing the will of millions of toilers, Trotsky was
   simply executing his own will. He did not consult those millions nor
   the local soviets which had, in Bolshevik ideology, surrendered their
   power to the handful of people in the central committee of the
   Bolshevik Party. By banning the conference he was very effectively
   undermining the practical, functional democracy of millions and
   replacing it with a purely formal "democracy" based on empowering a few
   leaders at the centre. Yes, indeed, truly democracy in action when one
   person can deny a revolutionary people its right to decide its own
   fate!

   Unsurprisingly, the anarchist Nestor Makhno replied by arguing that he
   considered it "an inviolable right of the workers and peasants, a right
   won by the revolution, to call congresses on their own account, to
   discuss their affairs. That is why the prohibition by the central
   authorities on the calling of such congresses . . . represent a direct
   and insolent violation of the rights of the workers." [quoted by Peter
   Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 129] We will leave
   it to the readers to decide which of the two, Trotsky or Makhno, showed
   the fundamentally "anti-democratic" perspective.

   Moreover, there are a few theoretical issues that need to be raised on
   this matter. Notice, for example, that no attempt is made to answer the
   simple question of why having 51% of a group automatically makes you
   right! It is taken for granted that the minority should subject
   themselves to the will of the majority before that will is even decided
   upon. Does that mean, for example, that Marxists refuse minorities the
   right of civil disobedience if the majority acts in a way which harms
   their liberties and equality? If, for example, the majority in
   community decides to implement race laws, does that mean that Marxists
   would oppose the discriminated minority taking direct action to
   undermine and abolish them? Or, to take an example closer to Marxism,
   in 1914 the leaders of the Social Democratic Party in the German
   Parliament voted for war credits. The anti-war minority of that group
   went along with the majority in the name of "democracy," "unity" and
   "discipline". Would Howl and Draper argue that they were right to do
   so? If they were not right to betray the ideas of Marxism and
   international working class solidarity, then why not? They did, after
   all, subject themselves to the "most perfect socialist democracy" and
   so, presumably, made the correct decision.

   Simply put, the arguments that anarchists are "anti-democratic" are
   question-begging in the extreme, when not simply hypocritical.

   As a general rule-of-thumb, anarchists have little problem with the
   minority accepting the decisions of the majority after a process of
   free debate and discussion. As we argue in [38]section A.2.11, such
   collective decision making is compatible with anarchist principles -
   indeed, is based on them. By governing ourselves directly, we exclude
   others governing us. However, we do not make a fetish of this,
   recognising that, in certain circumstances, the minority must and
   should ignore majority decisions. For example, if the majority of an
   organisation decide on a policy which the minority thinks is disastrous
   then why should they follow the majority? Equally, if the majority make
   a decision which harms the liberty and equality of a non-oppressive and
   non-exploitative minority, then that minority has the right to reject
   the "authority" of the majority. Hence Carole Pateman:

     "The essence of liberal social contract theory is that individuals
     ought to promise to, or enter an agreement to, obey representatives,
     to whom they have alienated their right to make political decisions
     . . . Promising . . . is an expression of individual freedom and
     equality, yet commits individuals for the future. Promising also
     implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement and
     rational deliberation, and of evaluating and changing their own
     actions and relationships; promises may sometimes justifiably be
     broken. However, to promise to obey is to deny or limit, to a
     greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and
     their ability to exercise these capacities. To promise to obey is to
     state that, in certain areas, the person making the promise is no
     longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own
     actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate." [The Problem of
     Political Obligation, p. 19]

   Thus, for anarchists, a democracy which does not involve individual
   rights to dissent, to disagree and to practice civil disobedience would
   violate freedom and equality, the very values Marxists usually claim to
   be at the heart of their politics. The claim that anarchism is
   "anti-democratic" basically hides the argument that the minority must
   become the slave of the majority - with no right of dissent when the
   majority is wrong (in practice, of course, it is usually meant the
   orders and laws of the minority who are elected to power). In effect,
   it wishes the minority to be subordinate, not equal, to the majority.
   Anarchists, in contrast, because we support self-management also
   recognise the importance of dissent and individuality - in essence,
   because we are in favour of self-management ("democracy" does not do
   the concept justice) we also favour the individual freedom that is its
   rationale. We support the liberty of individuals because we believe in
   self-management ("democracy") so passionately.

   So Howl and Draper fail to understand the rationale for democratic
   decision making - it is not based on the idea that the majority is
   always right but that individual freedom requires democracy to express
   and defend itself. By placing the collective above the individual, they
   undermine democratic values and replace them with little more than
   tyranny by the majority (or, more likely, a tiny minority who claim to
   represent the majority).

   Moreover, progress is determined by those who dissent and rebel against
   the status quo and the decisions of the majority. That is why
   anarchists support the right of dissent in self-managed groups - in
   fact, dissent, refusal, revolt by individuals and minorities is a key
   aspect of self-management. Given that Leninists do not support
   self-management (rather they, at best, support the Lockean notion of
   electing a government as being "democracy") it is hardly surprising
   they, like Locke, view dissent as a danger and something to denounce.
   Anarchists, on the other hand, recognising that self-management's (i.e.
   direct democracy's) rationale and base is in individual freedom,
   recognise and support the rights of individuals to rebel against what
   they consider as unjust impositions. As history shows, the anarchist
   position is the correct one - without rebellion, numerous minorities
   would never have improved their position and society would stagnate.
   Indeed, Howl's and Draper's comments are just a reflection of the
   standard capitalist diatribe against strikers and protestors - they do
   not need to protest, for they live in a "democracy."

   This Marxist notion that anarchists are "anti-democratic" gets them
   into massive contradictions. Lance Selfa's highly inaccurate and
   misleading article "Emma Goldman: A life of controversy" is an example
   of this [International Socialist Review, no. 34, March-April 2004]
   Ignoring the far more substantial evidence for Leninist elitism, Selfa
   asserted that "Goldman never turned away from the idea that heroic
   individuals, not masses, make history" and quotes from her 1910 essay
   "Minorities Versus Majorities" to prove this. Significantly, he does
   not actually refute the arguments Goldman expounded. He does, needless
   to say, misrepresent them.

   The aim of Goldman's essay was to state the obvious - that the mass is
   not the source for new ideas. Rather, new, progressive, ideas are the
   product of minorities and which then spread to the majority by the
   actions of those minorities. Even social movements and revolutions
   start when a minority takes action. Trade unionism, for example, was
   (and still is) a minority movement in most countries. Support for
   racial and sexual equality was long despised (or, at best, ignored) by
   the majority and it took a resolute minority to advance that cause and
   spread the idea in the majority. The Russian Revolution did not start
   with the majority. It started when a minority of women workers
   (ignoring the advice of the local Bolsheviks) took to the streets and
   from these hundreds grew into a movement of hundreds of thousands.

   The facts are clearly on the side of Goldman, not Selfa. Given that
   Goldman was expounding such an obvious law of social evolution, it
   seems incredulous that Selfa has a problem with it. This is
   particularly the case as Marxism (particularly its Leninist version)
   implicitly recognises this. As Marx argued, the ruling ideas of any
   epoch are those of the ruling class. Likewise for Goldman: "Human
   thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and
   perverted false education in the interests of those who held power . .
   . by the State and the ruling class." Hence the "continuous struggle"
   against "the State and even against 'society,' that is, against the
   majority subdued and hypnotised by the State and State worship." If
   this were not the case, as Goldman noted, no state could save itself or
   private property from the masses. Hence the need for people to break
   from their conditioning, to act for themselves. As she argued, such
   direct action is "the salvation of man" as it "necessitates integrity,
   self-reliance, and courage." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 111 and p. 76]

   Thus Goldman, like other anarchists, was not dismissing the masses,
   just stressing the obvious: namely that socialism is a process of
   self-liberation and the task of the conscious minority is to encourage
   this process by encouraging the direct action of the masses. Hence
   Goldman's support for syndicalism and direct action, a support Selfa
   (significantly) fails to inform his readers of.

   So was Goldman's rejection of "majorities" the elitism Selfa claims it
   was? No, far from it. This is clear from looking at that work in
   context. For example, in a debate between her and a socialist she used
   the Lawrence strike "as an example of direct action." [Living My Life,
   vol. 1., p. 491] The workers in one of the mills started the strike by
   walking out. The next day five thousand at another mill struck and
   marched to another mill and soon doubled their number. The strikers
   soon had to supply food and fuel for 50,000. [Howard Zinn, A People's
   History of the United States, pp. 327-8] Rather than the strike being
   the act of the majority, it was the direct action of a minority which
   started it and it then spread to the majority (a strike, incidentally,
   Goldman supported and fund raised for). It should also be noted that
   the Lawrence strike reflected her ideas of how a general strike could
   be started by "one industry or by a small, conscious minority among the
   workers" which "is soon taken up by many other industries, spreading
   like wildfire." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 95]

   Do Marxists really argue that this was "elitist"? If so, then every
   spontaneous revolt is "elitist". Every attempt by oppressed minorities
   to resist their oppression is "elitist." Indeed, every attempt to
   change society is "elitist" as if it involves a minority not limiting
   themselves to simply advancing new ideas but, instead, taking direct
   action to raise awareness or to resist hierarchy in the here and now.
   Revolutions occur when the ideas of the majority catch up with the
   minority who inspire others with their ideas and activity. So in his
   keenness to label the anarchist movement "elitist", Selfa has also,
   logically, so-labelled the labour, feminist, peace and civil rights
   movements (among many others).

   Equally embarrassing for Selfa, Trotsky (a person whom he contrasts
   favourably with Goldman despite the fact he was a practitioner and
   advocate of party dictatorship) agreed with the anarchists on the
   importance of minorities. As he put it during the debate on Kronstadt
   in the late 1930s, a "revolution is 'made' directly by a minority. The
   success of a revolution is possible, however, only where this minority
   finds more or less support, or at least friendly neutrality, on the
   part of the majority. The shift in different stages of the revolution .
   . . is directly determined by changing political relations between the
   minority and the majority, between the vanguard and the class." [Lenin
   and Trotsky, Kronstadt, p. 85] Not that this makes Trotsky an elitist
   for Selfa, of course. The key difference is that Goldman did not argue
   that this minority should seize power and rule the masses, regardless
   of the wishes of that majority, as Trotsky did (see [39]section H.1.2).
   As Goldman noted, the "Socialist demagogues know that [her argument is
   true] as well as I, but they maintain the myth of the virtues of the
   majority, because their very scheme means the perpetuation of power"
   and "authority, coercion and dependence rest on the mass, but never
   freedom." [Op. Cit., p. 85]

   So, yes, anarchists do support individual freedom to resist even
   democratically made decisions simply because democracy has to be based
   on individual liberty. Without the right of dissent, democracy becomes
   a joke and little more than a numerical justification for tyranny. This
   does not mean we are "anti-democratic," indeed the reverse as we hold
   true to the fundamental rationale for democratic decision-making - it
   allows individuals to combine as equals and not as subordinates and
   masters. Moreover, diversity is essential for any viable eco-system and
   it is essential in any viable society (and, of course, any society
   worth living in). This means that a healthy society is one which
   encourages diversity, individuality, dissent and, equally, self-managed
   associations to ensure the freedom of all. As Malatesta argued:

     "There are matters over which it is worth accepting the will of the
     majority because the damage caused by a split would be greater than
     that caused by error; there are circumstances in which discipline
     becomes a duty because to fail in it would be to fail in the
     solidarity between the oppressed and would mean betrayal in face of
     the enemy. But when one is convinced that the organisation is
     pursuing a course which threatens the future and makes it difficult
     to remedy the harm done, then it is a duty to rebel and to resist
     even at the risk of providing a split . . . What is essential is
     that individuals should develop a sense of organisation and
     solidarity, and the conviction that fraternal co-operation is
     necessary to fight oppression and to achieve a society in which
     everyone will be able to enjoy his [or her] own life." [Errico
     Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, pp. 132-3]

   This means that anarchists are not against majority decision making as
   such. We simply recognise it has limitations. In practice, the need for
   majority and minority to come to an agreement is one most anarchists
   would recognise:

     "But such an adaptation [of the minority to the decisions of the
     majority] on the one hand by one group must be reciprocal, voluntary
     and must stem from an awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent
     the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It
     cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. . .

     "So . . . anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern in
     human society in general . . . how is it possible . . . to declare
     that anarchists should submit to the decisions of the majority
     before they have even heard what those might be?"
     [Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, pp. 100-1]

   Therefore, while accepting majority decision making as a key aspect of
   a revolutionary movement and a free society, anarchists do not make a
   fetish of it. We recognise that we must use our own judgement in
   evaluating each decision reached simply because the majority is not
   always right. We must balance the need for solidarity in the common
   struggle and needs of common life with critical analysis and judgement.
   As Malatesta argued:

     "In any case it is not a question of being right or wrong; it is a
     question of freedom, freedom for all, freedom for each individual so
     long as he [or she] does not violate the equal freedom of others. No
     one can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is
     closer to the truth and which is the best road for the greatest good
     for each and everyone. Experience through freedom is the only means
     to arrive at the truth and the best solutions; and there is no
     freedom if there is not the freedom to be wrong.

     "In our opinion, therefore, it is necessary that majority and
     minority should succeed in living together peacefully and profitably
     by mutual agreement and compromise, by the intelligent recognition
     of the practical necessities of communal life and of the usefulness
     of concessions which circumstances make necessary."
     [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 72]

   Needless to say, our arguments apply with even more force to the
   decisions of the representatives of the majority, who are in practice a
   very small minority. Leninists usually try and confuse these two
   distinct forms of decision making. When Leninists discuss majority
   decision making they almost always mean the decisions of those elected
   by the majority - the central committee or the government - rather than
   the majority of the masses or an organisation. Ultimately, the Leninist
   support for democracy (as the Russian Revolution showed) is conditional
   on whether the majority supports them or not. Anarchists are not as
   hypocritical or as elitist as this, arguing that everyone should have
   the same rights the Leninists usurp for their leaders.

   This counterpoising of socialism to "individualism" is significant. The
   aim of socialism is, after all, to increase individual liberty (to
   quote the Communist Manifesto, to create "an association, in which the
   free development of each is the condition for the free development of
   all." [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 491]). As such, authentic socialism
   is "individualist" in its aspirations and denounces capitalism for
   being a partial and flawed individualism which benefits the few at the
   expense of the many (in terms of their development and individuality).
   This can be seen when Goldman, for example, argued that anarchism
   "alone stresses the importance of the individual, his [or her]
   possibilities and needs in a free society." It "insists that the centre
   of gravity in society is the individual - that he must think for
   himself, act freely, and live fully. The aim of Anarchism is that every
   individual in the world shall be able to do so." Needless to say, she
   differentiated her position from bourgeois ideology: "Of course, this
   has nothing in common with a much boasted 'rugged individualism.' Such
   predatory individualism is really flabby, not rugged . . . Their
   'rugged individualism' is simply one of the many pretences the ruling
   class makes to unbridled business and political extortion." [Op. Cit.,
   p. 442 and p. 443] This support for individuality did not preclude
   solidarity, organising unions, practising direct action, supporting
   syndicalism, desiring communism and so on, but rather required it (as
   Goldman's own life showed). It flows automatically from a love of
   freedom for all. Given this, the typical Leninist attacks against
   anarchism for being "individualism" simply exposes the state capitalist
   nature of Bolshevism:

     "capitalism promotes egotism, not individuality or 'individualism.'
     . . . the ego it created . . . [is] shrivelled . . . The term
     'bourgeois individualism,' an epithet widely used by the left today
     against libertarian elements, reflects the extent to which bourgeois
     ideology permeates the socialist project; indeed, the extent to
     which the 'socialist' project (as distinguished from the libertarian
     communist project) is a mode of state capitalism." [Murray Bookchin,
     Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 194fn]

   Therefore the Marxist attack on anarchism as "anti-democratic" is not
   only false, it is ironic and hypocritical. Firstly, anarchists do not
   argue for "the absolute sovereignty of the individual ego." Rather, we
   argue for individual freedom. This, in turn, implies a commitment to
   self-managed forms of social organisation. This means that anarchists
   do not confuse agreement with (hierarchical) authority. Secondly,
   Marxists do not explain why the majority is always right or why their
   opinions are automatically the truth. Thirdly, the logical conclusions
   of their arguments would result in the absolute enserfment of the
   individual to the representatives of the majority. Fourthly, rather
   than being supporters of democracy, Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky
   explicitly argued for minority rule and the ignoring of majority
   decisions when they clashed with the decisions of the ruling party.
   Fifthly, their support for "democratic" centralised power means, in
   practice, the elimination of democracy in the grassroots. As can be
   seen from Trotsky's arguments against the Makhnovists, the democratic
   organisation and decisions of millions can be banned by a single
   individual.

   All in all, Marxists claims that anarchists are "anti-democratic" just
   backfire on Marxism.

H.2.12 Does anarchism survive only in the absence of a strong workers' movement?

   Derek Howl argues that anarchism "survives only in the absence of a
   strong workers movement" and is the politics of "non-proletarians." As
   he puts it, there "is a class basis to this. Just as Proudhon's
   'anarchism' reflected the petty bourgeoisie under pressure, so too
   Bakuninism as a movement rested upon non-proletarians . . . In Italy
   Bakuninism was based upon the large 'lumpen bourgeoisie', doomed petty
   bourgeois layers. In Switzerland the Jura Federation . . . was composed
   of a world of cottage industry stranded between the old world and the
   new, as were pockets of newly proletarianised peasants that
   characterised anarchism in Spain." He approvingly quotes Hal Draper
   assertion that anarchism "was an ideology alien to the life of modern
   working people." ["The Legacy of Hal Draper," pp. 137-49, International
   Socialism, no. 52, p. 148]

   Ignoring the obvious contradiction of "newly proletarianised peasants"
   being "non-proletarians," we have the standard Marxist "class analysis"
   of anarchism. This is to assert that anarchism is "non-proletarian"
   while Marxism is "proletarian." On the face of it, such an assertion
   seems to fly in the face of historical facts. After all, when Marx and
   Engels were writing the Communist Manifesto, the proletariat was a tiny
   minority of the population of a mostly rural, barely industrialised
   Germany. Perhaps it was Engels' experiences as a capitalist in England
   that allowed him an insight into "the life of modern working people?"
   It should also be noted that neither Howel or Draper is being original,
   they are simply repeating Marx's assertion that anarchism "continues to
   exist only where there is as yet no proper workers' movement. This is a
   fact." [Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 247]

   Beyond this there are a few problems with this type of argument.
   Firstly, there are the factual problems. Simply put, anarchism appealed
   to "modern" working people and Marxism has appealed to the
   "non-proletarian" groups and individuals (and vice versa, of course).
   This can be seen from the examples Howl lists as well as the rise of
   syndicalist ideas after the reformism of the first Marxist movement
   (social democracy) became apparent. In fact, the rise of Marxism within
   the labour movement is associated with its descent into reformism, not
   revolution. Secondly, there is the slight ideological problem that
   Lenin himself argued that the working class, by its own efforts, did
   not produce socialist ideas which were generated far from "the life of
   modern working people" by the intelligentsia. Lastly, there is the
   assumption that two long dead Germans, living in an environment where
   "modern working people" (proletarians) were a small minority of the
   working population, could really determine for all time what is (and is
   not) "proletarian" politics.

   Taking the countries Howl lists, we can see that any claim that
   anarchism is "alien" to the working class is simply false. Looking at
   each one, it is clearly the case that, for Marxists, the politics of
   the people involved signify their working class credentials, not their
   actual economic or social class. Thus we have the sociological
   absurdity that makes anarchist workers "petty bourgeois" while actual
   members of the bourgeoisie (like Engels) or professional
   revolutionaries (and the sons of middle class families like Marx, Lenin
   and Trotsky) are considered as representatives of "proletarian"
   politics. Indeed, when these radical members of the middle-class
   repress working class people (as did Lenin and Trotsky were in power)
   they remain figures to be followed and their acts justified in terms of
   the "objective" needs of the working people they are oppressing!
   Ultimately, for most Marxists, whether someone is "non-proletariat"
   depends on their ideological viewpoint and not, in fact, their actual
   class.

   Hence we discover Marx and Engels (like their followers) blaming
   Bakunin's success in the International, as one historian notes, "on the
   middle-class leadership of Italy's socialist movement and the
   backwardness of the country. But if middle-class leaders were the
   catalysts of proletarian revolutionary efforts in Italy, this was also
   true of every other country in Europe, not excluding the General
   Council in London." [T.R. Ravindranathan, Bakunin and the Italians, p.
   168] And by interpreting the difficulties for Marxism in this way, Marx
   and Engels (like their followers) need not question their own ideas and
   assumptions. As Nunzio Pernicone notes, "[f]rom the outset, Engels had
   consistently underestimated Bakunin as a political adversary and
   refused to believe that Italian workers might embrace anarchist
   doctrines." However, "even a casual perusal of the internationalist and
   dissident democratic press would have revealed to Engels that
   Bakuninism was rapidly developing a following among Italian artisans
   and workers. But this reality flew in the face of his unshakeable
   belief that Italian internationalists were all a 'gang of declasses,
   the refuse of the bourgeoisie.'" Even after the rise of the Italian
   Marxism in the 1890s, "the anarchist movement was proportionately more
   working-class than the PSI" and the "the number of bourgeois
   intellectuals and professionals that supported the PSI [Italian
   Socialist Party] was vastly greater" than those supporting anarchism.
   Indeed, "the percentage of party membership derived from the
   bourgeoisie was significantly higher in the PSI than among the
   anarchists." [Italian Anarchism, 1864-1892, p. 82 and p. 282]
   Ironically, given Engels diatribes against the Italian anarchists
   stopping workers following "proletarian" (i.e. Marxist) politics and
   standing for elections, "as the PSI grew more working-class, just
   before the outbreak of war [in 1914], its Directorate [elected by the
   party congress] grew more anti-parliamentary." [Gwyn A. Williams,
   Proletarian Order, p. 29]

   As we noted in [40]section A.5.5, the role of the anarchists and
   syndicalists compared to the Marxists during the 1920 near revolution
   suggested that the real "proletarian" revolutionaries were, in fact,
   the former and not the latter. All in all, the history of the Italian
   labour movement clearly show that, for most Marxists, whether a group
   represents the "proletariat" is simply dependent on their ideological
   commitment, not their actual class.

   As regards the Jura Federation, we discover that its support was wider
   than suggested. As Marxist Paul Thomas noted, "Bakunin's initial
   support in Switzerland - like Marx's in England - came from resident
   aliens, political refugees . . . but he also gathered support among
   Gastarbeitier for whom Geneva was already a centre, where builders,
   carpenters and workers in heavy industry tended to be French or Italian
   . . . Bakunin . . . also marshalled considerable support among French
   speaking domestic workers and watchmakers in the Jura." [Karl Marx and
   the Anarchists, p. 390] It would be interesting to hear a Marxist claim
   that "heavy industry" represented the past or "non-proletarian"
   elements! Similarly, E. H. Carr in his (hostile) biography of Bakunin,
   noted that the "sections of the International at Geneva fell into two
   groups." Skilled craftsmen formed the "Right wing" while "the builders,
   carpenters, and workers in the heavier trades, the majority of whom
   were immigrants from France and Italy, represented the Left."
   Unsurprisingly, these different groups of workers had different
   politics. The craftsmen "concentrated on . . . reform" while the others
   "nourished hopes of a complete social upheaval." Bakunin, as would be
   expected, "fanned the spirit of revolt" among these, the proletarian
   workers and soon had a "commanding position in the Geneva
   International." [Michael Bakunin, p. 361] It should be noted that Marx
   and the General Council of the International consistently supported the
   reformist wing of the International in Geneva which organised political
   alliances with the middle-class liberals during elections. Given these
   facts, it is little wonder that Howl concentrates on the support
   Bakunin received from domestic workers producing watches. To mention
   the support for Bakunin by organised, obviously proletarian, workers
   would undermine his case and so it is ignored.

   Lastly, there is Spain. It seems funny that a Marxist would use Spain
   as an example against the class roots of anarchism. After all, that is
   one of the countries where anarchism dominated the working class
   movement. As one historian points out, "it was not until the 1860s -
   when anarchism was introduced - that a substantive working class
   movement began to emerge" and "throughout the history of Spanish
   anarchism, its survival depended in large measure on the anarchists'
   ability to maintain direct links with the workers." [George R.
   Esenwein, Anarchist Ideology and the Working-Class Movement in Spain,
   1868-1898, p. 6 and p. 207] As well as organising "newly
   proletarianised peasants," the "Bakuninists" also organised industrial
   workers - indeed, far more successfully than the Socialists.
   Ironically, the UGT only started to approach the size of the CNT once
   it had started to organise "newly proletarianised peasants" in the
   1930s (i.e., anarchist unions organised more of the industrial working
   class than the Socialist ones). From such a fact, we wonder if Marxists
   would argue that socialism rested on "non-proletarian" elements?

   Moreover, the logic of dismissing anarchism as "non-proletarian"
   because it organised "newly proletarianised peasants" is simply
   laughable. After all, capitalism needed landless labours in order to
   start. This meant that the first proletarians lived in rural areas and
   were made up of ex-peasants. When these ex-peasants arrived in the
   towns and cities, they were still "newly proletarianised peasants." To
   ignore these groups of workers would mean potentially harming the
   labour movement. And, of course, a large section of Bolshevik support
   in 1917 was to be found in "newly proletarianised peasants" whether in
   the army or working in the factories. Ironically enough, the Mensheviks
   argued that the Bolsheviks gained their influence from worker-peasant
   industrial "raw recruits" and not from the genuine working class.
   [Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy, p. 830] As such, to dismiss
   anarchism because it gained converts from similar social strata as the
   Bolsheviks seems, on the face of it, a joke.

   As can be seen Howl's attempts to subject anarchism to a "class
   analysis" simply fails. He selects the evidence which fits his theory
   and ignores that which does not. However, looking at the very examples
   he bases his case on shows how nonsensical it is. Simply put, anarchist
   ideas appealed to many types of workers, including typically
   "proletarian" ones who worked in large-scale industries. What they seem
   to have in common is a desire for radical social change, organised by
   themselves in their own combative class organs (such as unions).
   Moreover, like the early British workers movement, they considered
   these unions, as well as being organs of class struggle, could also be
   the framework of a free socialist society. Such a perspective is hardly
   backward (indeed, since 1917 most Marxists pay lip-service to this
   vision!).

   Which brings us to the next major problem with Howl's argument, namely
   the fate of Marxism and the "strong" labour movement it allegedly is
   suited for. Looking at the only nation which did have a "modern"
   working class during the most of Marx's life, Britain, the "strong"
   labour movement it produced was (and has) not been anarchist, it is
   true, but neither was it (nor did it become) Marxist. Rather, it has
   been a mishmash of conflicting ideas, predominately reformist state
   socialist ones which owe little, if anything, to Marx. Indeed, the
   closest Britain came to developing a wide scale revolutionary working
   class movement was during the "syndicalist revolt" of the 1910s.
   Ironically, some Marxists joined this movement simply because the
   existing Marxist parties were so reformist or irrelevant to the "life
   of modern working people."

   Looking at other countries, we find the same process. The rise of
   social democracy (Marxism) in the international labour movement simply
   signified the rise of reformism. Instead of producing a revolutionary
   labour movement, Marxism helped produce the opposite (although,
   initially, hiding reformist activity behind revolutionary rhetoric). So
   when Howl asserts that anarchism "survives in the absence of a strong
   workers' movement," we have to wonder what planet he is on.

   Thus, to state matters more correctly, anarchism flourishes during
   those periods when the labour movement and its members are radical,
   taking direct action and creating new forms of organisation which are
   still based on workers' self-management. This is to be expected as
   anarchism is both based upon and is the result of workers'
   self-liberation through struggle. In less militant times, the effects
   of bourgeois society and the role of unions within the capitalist
   economy can de-radicalise the labour movement and lead to the rise of
   bureaucracy within it. It is then, during periods when the class
   struggle is low, that reformist ideas spread. Sadly, Marxism aided that
   spread by its tactics - the role of electioneering focused struggle
   away from direct action and into the ballot-box and so onto leaders
   rather than working class self-activity.

   Moreover, if we look at the current state of the labour movement, then
   we would have to conclude that Marxism is "an ideology alien to the
   life of modern working people." Where are the large Marxist working
   class unions and parties? There are a few large reformist socialist and
   Stalinist parties in continental Europe, but these are not Marxist in
   any meaningful sense of the word. Most of the socialist ones used to be
   Marxist, although they relatively quickly stopped being revolutionary
   in any meaningful sense of the word a very long time ago (some, like
   the German Social Democrats, organised counter-revolutionary forces to
   crush working class revolt after the First World War). As for the
   Stalinist parties, it would be better to consider it a sign of shame
   that they get any support in the working class at all. In terms of
   revolutionary Marxists, there are various Trotskyist sects arguing
   amongst themselves on who is the real vanguard of the proletariat, but
   no Marxist labour movement.

   Which, of course, brings us to the next point, namely the ideological
   problems for Leninists themselves by such an assertion. After all,
   Lenin himself argued that "the life of modern working people" could
   only produce "trade-union consciousness." According to him, socialist
   ideas were developed independently of working people by the socialist
   (middle-class) "intelligentsia." As we discuss in [41]section H.5.1,
   for Lenin, socialism was an ideology which was alien to the life of
   modern working class people.

   Lastly, there is the question of whether Marx and Engels can seriously
   be thought of as being able to decree once and for all what is and is
   not "proletarian" politics. Given that neither of these men were
   working class (one was a capitalist!) it makes the claim that they
   would know "proletarian" politics suspect. Moreover, they formulated
   their ideas of what constitute "proletarian" politics before a modern
   working class actually developed in any country bar Britain. This
   means, that from the experience of one section of the proletariat in
   one country in the 1840s, Marx and Engels have decreed for all time
   what is and is not a "proletarian" set of politics! On the face of it,
   it is hardly a convincing argument, particularly as we have over 150
   years of experience of these tactics with which to evaluate them!

   Based on this perspective, Marx and Engels opposed all other socialist
   groups as "sects" if they did not subscribe to their ideas. Ironically,
   while arguing that all other socialists were fostering their sectarian
   politics onto the workers movement, they themselves fostered their own
   perspective onto it. Originally, because the various sections of the
   International worked under different circumstances and had attained
   different degrees of development, the theoretical ideals which
   reflected the real movement also diverged. The International,
   therefore, was open to all socialist and working class tendencies and
   its general policies would be, by necessity, based on conference
   decisions that reflected this divergence. These decisions would be
   determined by free discussion within and between sections of all
   economic, social and political ideas. Marx, however, replaced this
   policy with a common program of "political action" (i.e.
   electioneering) by mass political parties via the fixed Hague
   conference of 1872. Rather than having this position agreed by the
   normal exchange of ideas and theoretical discussion in the sections
   guided by the needs of the practical struggle, Marx imposed what he
   considered as the future of the workers movement onto the International
   - and denounced those who disagreed with him as sectarians. The notion
   that what Marx considered as necessary might be another sectarian
   position imposed on the workers' movement did not enter his head nor
   those of his followers:

     "Marx had indeed insisted, in the earlier years of the First
     International, on the need for building on actual movements rather
     than constructing a dogma which movements were then required to fit.
     But when the actual movements took forms which he disliked, as they
     largely did in Spain and Italy, in Germany under Lassalle's
     influence, and in Great Britain as soon as the Trade Unions' most
     immediate demands had been met, he was apt to forget his own
     precepts and to become the grand inquisitor into heretical
     misdeeds." [G.D.H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought, vol. 2, p.
     256]

   That support for "political action" was just as "sectarian" as support
   for non-participation in elections can be seen from Engels 1895 comment
   that "[t]here had long been universal suffrage in France, but it had
   fallen into disrepute through the misuse to which the Bonapartist
   government had put it . . . It also existed in Spain since the
   republic, but in Spain boycott of elections was ever the rule of all
   serious opposition parties . . . The revolutionary workers of the Latin
   countries had been wont to regard the suffrage as a snare, as an
   instrument of government trickery." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 565]
   Needless to say, he had failed to mention those little facts when he
   was attacking anarchists for expressing the opinions of the
   "revolutionary workers of the Latin countries" and "all serious
   opposition parties" in the 1870s! Similarly, the Haymarket Martyrs had
   moved from a Marxist position on elections to an anarchist one after
   their own experiences using the ballot box, as did the many British
   socialists who became syndicalists in the early years of the 20th
   century. It seems strange to conclude that these positions are not
   expressions of working class struggle while that of Marx and Engels
   are, particularly given the terrible results of that strategy!

   Thus the Marxist claim that true working class movements are based on
   mass political parties based on hierarchical, centralised, leadership
   and those who reject this model and political action (electioneering)
   are sects and sectarians is simply their option and little more. Once
   we look at the workers' movement without the blinkers created by
   Marxism, we see that Anarchism was a movement of working class people
   using what they considered valid tactics to meet their own social,
   economic and political goals - tactics and goals which evolved to meet
   changing circumstances. Seeing the rise of anarchism and syndicalism as
   the political expression of the class struggle, guided by the needs of
   the practical struggle they faced naturally follows when we recognise
   the Marxist model for what it is - just one possible interpretation of
   the future of the workers' movement rather than the future of that
   movement (and as the history of Social Democracy indicates, the
   predictions of Bakunin and the anarchists within the First
   International were proved correct).

   This tendency to squeeze the revolutionary workers' movement into the
   forms decreed by two people in the mid-nineteenth century has proved to
   be disastrous for it. Even after the total failure of social democracy,
   the idea of "revolutionary" parliamentarianism was fostered onto the
   Third International by the Bolsheviks in spite of the fact that more
   and more revolutionary workers in advanced capitalist nations were
   rejecting it in favour of direct action and autonomous working class
   self-organisation. Anarchists and libertarian Marxists based themselves
   on this actual movement of working people, influenced by the failure of
   "political action," while the Bolsheviks based themselves on the works
   of Marx and Engels and their own experiences in a backward, semi-feudal
   society whose workers had already created factory committees and
   soviets by direct action. It was for this reason that the
   anarcho-syndicalist Augustin Souchy said he referred "to the tendencies
   that exist in the modern workers' movement" when he argued at the
   Second Congress of the Communist International:

     "It must be granted that among revolutionary workers the tendency
     toward parliamentarism is disappearing more and more. On the
     contrary, a strong anti-parliamentary tendency is becoming apparent
     in the ranks of the most advanced part of the proletariat. Look at
     the Shop Stewards' movement [in Britain] or Spanish syndicalism . .
     . The IWW is absolutely antiparliamentary . . . I want to point out
     that the idea of antiparliamentarism is asserting itself more
     strongly in Germany . . . as a result of the revolution itself . . .
     We must view the question in this light." [Proceedings and Documents
     of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 1, pp. 176-7]

   Of course, this perspective of basing yourself on the ideas and tactics
   generated by the class struggle was rejected in favour of a return to
   the principles of Marx and Engels and their vision of what constituted
   a genuine "proletarian" movement. If these tactics were the correct
   ones, then why did they not lead to a less dismal set of results? After
   all, the degeneration of social democracy into reformism would suggest
   their failure and sticking "revolutionary" before their tactics (as in
   "revolutionary parliamentarianism") changes little. Marxists, like
   anarchists, are meant to be materialists, not idealists. What was the
   actual outcome of the Leninist strategies? Did they result in
   successful proletarian revolutions. No, they did not. The revolutionary
   wave peaked and fell and the Leninist parties themselves very easily
   and quickly became Stalinised. Significantly, those areas with a large
   anarchist, syndicalist or quasi-syndicalist (e.g. the council
   communists) workers movements (Italy, Spain and certain parts of
   Germany) came closest to revolution and by the mid-1930s, only Spain
   with its strong anarchist movement had a revolutionary labour movement.
   Therefore, rather than representing "non-proletarian" or "sectarian"
   politics forced upon the working class, anarchism reflected the
   politics required to built a revolutionary workers' movement rather
   than a reformist mass party.

   As such, perhaps we can finally lay to rest the idea that Marx
   predicted the whole future of the labour movement and the path it must
   take like some kind of socialist Nostradamus. Equally, we can dismiss
   Marxist claims of the "non-proletarian" nature of anarchism as
   uninformed and little more than an attempt to squeeze history into an
   ideological prison. As noted above, in order to present such an
   analysis, the actual class compositions of significant events and
   social movements have to be manipulated. This is the case of the Paris
   Commune, for example, which was predominantly a product of artisans
   (i.e. the "petit bourgeoisie"), not the industrial working class and
   yet claimed by Marxists as an example of the "dictatorship of the
   proletariat." Ironically, many of the elements of the Commune praised
   by Marx can be found in the works of Proudhon and Bakunin which
   pre-date the uprising. Similarly, the idea that workers' fighting
   organisations ("soviets") would be the means to abolish the state and
   the framework of a socialist society can be found in Bakunin's works,
   decades before Lenin paid lip-service to this idea in 1917. For a
   theory allegedly resting on "non-proletarian" elements anarchism has
   successfully predicted many of the ideas Marxists claim to have learnt
   from proletarian class struggle!

   So, in summary, the claims that anarchism is "alien" to working class
   life, that it is "non-proletarian" or "survives in the absence of a
   strong workers' movement" are simply false. Looking objectively at the
   facts of the matter quickly shows that this is the case.

H.2.13 Do anarchists reject "political" struggles and action?

   A common Marxist claim is that anarchists and syndicalists ignore or
   dismiss the importance of "political" struggles or action. This is not
   true. Rather, as we discuss in [42]section J.2.10, we think that
   "political" struggles should be conducted by the same means as social
   and economic struggles, namely by direct action, solidarity and working
   class self-organisation.

   As this is a common assertion, it is useful to provide a quick summary
   of why anarchists do not, in fact, reject "political" struggles and
   action as such. Rather, to quote Bakunin, anarchism "does not reject
   politics generally. It will certainly be forced to involve itself
   insofar as it will be forced to struggle against the bourgeois class.
   It only rejects bourgeois politics" as it "establishes the predatory
   domination of the bourgeoisie." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin,
   p. 313] For Kropotkin, it was a truism that it was "absolutely
   impossible . . . to confine the ideas of the working mass within the
   narrow circle of reductions in working hours and wage increases . . .
   The social question compels attention." This fact implied two
   responses: "the workers' organisation propels itself either into the
   sterile path of parliamentary politics as in Germany, or into the path
   of revolution." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the rise of
   Revolutionary Anarchism, 1872-1886, p. 241]

   So while Marxists often argue that anarchists are exclusively
   interested in economic struggle and reject "politics" or "political
   action," the truth of the matter is different. We are well aware of the
   importance of political issues, although anarchists reject using
   bourgeois methods in favour of direct action. Moreover, we are aware
   that any social or economic struggle has its political aspects and that
   such struggles bring the role of the state as defender of capitalism
   and the need to struggle against it into focus:

     "There is no serious strike that occurs today without the appearance
     of troops, the exchange of blows and some acts of revolt. Here they
     fight with the troops; there they march on the factories; . . . in
     Pittsburgh in the United States, the strikers found themselves
     masters of a territory as large as France, and the strike became the
     signal for a general revolt against the State; in Ireland the
     peasants on strike found themselves in open revolt against the
     State. Thanks to government intervention the rebel against the
     factory becomes the rebel against the State." [Kropotkin, quoted by
     Caroline Cahm, Op. Cit., p. 256]

   As Malatesta argued, from "the economic struggle one must pass to the
   political struggle, that is to struggle against government; and instead
   of opposing the capitalist millions with the workers' few pennies
   scraped together with difficulty, one must oppose the rifles and guns
   which defend property with the more effective means that the people
   will be able to defeat force by force." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and
   Ideas, pp. 193-4]

   This means that the question of whether to conduct political struggles
   is not the one which divides anarchists from Marxists. Rather, it is a
   question of how this struggle is fought. For anarchists, this struggle
   is best fought using direct action (see [43]section J.2) and fighting
   working class organisations based in our workplaces and communities.
   For Marxists, the political struggle is seen as being based on standing
   candidates in bourgeois elections. This can be seen from the resolution
   passed by the socialist ("Second") International in 1893. This
   resolution was designed to exclude anarchists and stated that only
   "those Socialist Parties and Organisations which recognise the
   organisation of workers and of political action" could join the
   International. By "political action" it meant "that the working-class
   organisations seek, in as far as possible, to use or conquer political
   rights and the machinery of legislation for the furthering of the
   interests of the proletariat and the conquest of political power."
   [quoted by Susan Milner, The Dilemmas of Internationalism, p. 49]
   Significantly, while this International and its member parties
   (particular the German Social Democrats) were happy to expel
   anarchists, they never expelled the leading reformists from their
   ranks.

   So, in general, anarchists use the word "political action" to refer
   exclusively to the taking part of revolutionaries in bourgeois
   elections (i.e. electioneering or parliamentarianism). It does not mean
   a rejection of fighting for political reforms or a lack of interest in
   political issues, quite the reverse in fact. The reason why anarchists
   reject this tactic is discussed in [44]section J.2.6).

   For Kropotkin, the idea that you could somehow "prepare" for a
   revolution by electioneering was simply a joke. "As if the
   bourgeoisie," he argued, "still holding on to its capital, could allow
   them [the socialists] to experiment with socialism even if they
   succeeded in gaining control of power! As if the conquest of the
   municipalities were possible without the conquest of the factories." He
   saw that "those who yesterday were considered socialists are today
   letting go of socialism, by renouncing its mother idea ["the need to
   replace the wage system and to abolish individual ownership of . . .
   social capital"] and passing over into the camp of the bourgeoisie,
   while retaining, so as to hide their turnabout, the label of
   socialism." [Words of a Rebel, p. 181 and p. 180] The differences in
   results between direct action and electioneering were obvious:

     "However moderate the war cry - provided it is in the domain of
     relations between capital and labour - as soon as it proceeds to put
     it into practice by revolutionary methods, it ends by increasing it
     and will be led to demand the overthrow of the regime of property.
     On the other hand a party which confines itself to parliamentary
     politics ends up abandoning its programme, however advanced it may
     have been at the beginning." [Kropotkin, quoted by Cahm, Op. Cit.,
     p. 252]

   Ultimately, the bourgeois tactics used ended up with bourgeois results.
   As Emma Goldman argued, socialism "was led astray by the evil spirit of
   politics" and "landed in the [political] trap and has now but one
   desire - to adjust itself to the narrow confines of its cage, to become
   part of the authority, part of the very power that has slain the
   beautiful child Socialism and left behind a hideous monster." [Red Emma
   Speaks, p. 103] The net effect of "political action" was the corruption
   of the socialist movement into a reformist party which betrayed the
   promise of socialism in favour of making existing society better (so it
   can last longer). This process confirmed Bakunin's predictions. As
   Kropotkin put it:

     "The middle class will not give up its power without a struggle. It
     will resist. And in proportion as Socialists will become part of the
     Government and share power with the middle class, their Socialism
     will grow paler and paler. This is, indeed, what Socialism is
     rapidly doing. Were this no so, the middle classes . . . would not
     share their power with the Socialists." [Evolution and Environment,
     p. 102]

   In addition, as we argue in [45]section J.2.5, direct action is either
   based on (or creates) forms of self-managed working class
   organisations. The process of collective struggle, in other words,
   necessitates collective forms of organisation and decision making.
   These combative organisations, as well as conducting the class struggle
   under capitalism, can also be the framework of a free society (see
   [46]section H.1.4). However, standing in elections does not produce
   such alternative social structures and, indeed, hinders them as the
   focus for social changes becomes a few leaders working in existing
   (i.e. bourgeois) structures and bodies (see [47]section H.1.5).

   As can be seen, anarchists reject "political" struggle (i.e.
   electioneering) for good (and historically vindicated) reasons. This
   makes a mockery of Marxists assertions (beginning with Marx) that
   anarchists like Bakunin "opposed all political action by the working
   class since this would imply 'recognition' of the existing state."
   [Derek Howl, "The Legacy of Hal Draper," pp. 13-49, International
   Socialism, no. 52, p. 147] This, in fact, is a common Marxist claim,
   namely that anarchists reject "political struggle" on principle (i.e.
   for idealistic purposes). In the words of Engels, Bakunin was "opposed
   to all political action by the working class, since this would in fact
   involve recognition of the existing state." [Marx, Engels and Lenin,
   Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 49] Sadly, like all Marxists, he
   failed to indicate where, in fact, Bakunin actually said that. As can
   be seen, this was not the case. Bakunin, like all revolutionary
   anarchists, rejected "political action" (in the sense of
   electioneering) simply because they feared that such tactics would be
   counterproductive and undermine the revolutionary nature of the labour
   movement. As the experience of Marxist Social Democracy showed, he was
   correct.

   In summary, while anarchists reject standing of socialists in elections
   ("political action," narrowly defined), we do not reject the need to
   fight for political reforms or specific political issues. However, we
   see such action as being based on collective working class direct
   action organised around combative organs of working class
   self-management and power rather than the individualistic act of
   placing a cross on a piece of power once every few years and letting
   leaders fight your struggles for you.

H.2.14 Are anarchist organisations "ineffective," "elitist" or "downright
bizarre"?

   Marxists often accuse anarchist organisations of being "elitist" or
   "secret." Pat Stack (of the British SWP) ponders the history of
   anarchist organisation (at least the SWP version of that history):

     "how otherwise [than Leninist vanguard political parties] do
     revolutionaries organise? Apart from the serious efforts of
     anarcho-syndicalists to grapple with this problem, anarchists have
     failed to pose any serious alternative. In as much as they do, they
     have produced either the ineffective, the elitist or the downright
     bizarre. Bakunin's organisation, the 'Alliance of Social Democracy',
     managed all three: 'The organisation had two overlapping forms, one
     secret, involving only the "intimates", and one public, the Alliance
     of Social Democracy. Even in its open, public mode, the alliance was
     to be a highly centralised organisation, with all decisions on the
     national level approved by the Central Committee. Since it was the
     real controlling body, the secret organisation was even more tightly
     centralised . . . with first a Central Committee, then a "central
     Geneva section" acting as the "permanent delegation of the permanent
     Central Committee", and, finally, within the central Geneva section
     a "Central Bureau", which was to be both the "executive power . . .
     composed of three, or five, or even seven members" of the secret
     organisation and the executive directory of the public
     organisation.'

     "That this was far more elitist and less democratic than Lenin's
     model is clear."
     ["Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246]

   There are, as is obvious, numerous problems with Stack's assertions.
   Firstly, he makes absolutely no attempt to discuss anarchist ideas on
   the question of revolutionary organisation. Rather, he prefers to
   present a somewhat distorted account of the ideas of Bakunin on the
   structural aspects of his organisation, ideas which died with him in
   1876! Secondly, as Stack fails to discuss how anarchists (including
   Bakunin) see their organisations operating, its hard to determine
   whether they are "ineffective" or "elitist." This is hardly surprising,
   as they are neither. Thirdly, even as regards his own example
   (Bakunin's Alliance) his claim that it was "ineffectual" seems
   inappropriate in the extreme. Whether it was "elitist" or "downright
   bizarre" is hard to determine, as Stack quotes an unnamed author and
   their quotes from its structure. Fourthly, and ironically for Stack,
   Lenin's "model" shared many of the same features as those of Bakunin's!

   Significantly, Stack fails to discuss any of the standard anarchist
   ideas on how revolutionaries should organise. As we discuss in
   [48]section J.3, there are three main types: the "synthesis"
   federation, the "class struggle" federation and those inspired by the
   "Platform." In the twenty-first century, these are the main types of
   anarchist organisation. As such, it would be extremely hard to argue
   that these are "elitist," "ineffective" or "downright bizarre." What
   these organisational ideas have in common is the vision of an anarchist
   organisation as a federation of autonomous self-managed groups which
   work with others as equals. How can directly democratic organisations,
   which influence others by the force of their ideas and by their
   example, be "elitist" or "downright bizarre"? Little wonder, then, that
   Stack used an example from 1868 to attack anarchism in the twenty-first
   century! If he actually presented an honest account of anarchist ideas
   then his claims would quickly be seen to be nonsense. And as for the
   claim of being "ineffective," well, given that Stack's article is an
   attempt to combat anarchist influence in the anti-globalisation
   movement it would suggest the opposite.

   Even looking at the example of Bakunin's Alliance, we can see evidence
   that Stack's summary is simply wrong. It seems strange for Stack to
   claim that the Alliance was "ineffective." After all, Marx spent many
   years combating it (and Bakunin's influence) in the First
   International. Indeed, so effective was it that anarchist ideas
   dominated most sections of that organisation, forcing Marx to move the
   General Council to America to ensure that it did not fall into the
   hands of the anarchists (i.e. of the majority). Moreover, it was hardly
   "ineffective" when it came to building the International. As Marxist
   Paul Thomas notes, "the International was to prove capable of expanding
   its membership only at the behest of the Bakuninists [sic!]" and
   "[w]herever the International was spreading, it was doing so under the
   mantle of Bakuninism." [Karl Marx and the Anarchists, p. 315 and p.
   319] Even Engels had to admit that the Spanish section was "one of
   finest organisations within the International (which the Spanish
   Marxists had to "rescue from the influence of the Alliance humbugs").
   [Collected Works, vol. 23, p. 292]

   Yet Stack considers this as an example of an "ineffective"
   organisation! But, to be fair, this seems to have been a common failing
   with Marxists. In 1877, for example, Engels showed his grasp of things
   by saying "we may safely predict that the new departure [in Spain] will
   not come from these 'anarchist' spouters, but from the small body of
   intelligent and energetic workmen who, in 1872, remained true to the
   International." [Marx, Engels, Lenin, Anarchism and
   Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 163] In reality, the Spanish Socialist Party
   was bureaucratic and reformist to the core while it was the anarchists
   who made the Spanish labour movement the most dynamic and revolutionary
   in the world.

   As regards Stack's summary of Bakunin's organisation goes, we must note
   that Stack is quoting an unnamed source on Bakunin's views on this
   subject. We, therefore, have no way of evaluating whether this is a
   valid summary of Bakunin's ideas on this matter. As we indicate
   elsewhere (see [49]section J.3.7) Leninist summaries of Bakunin's ideas
   on secret organising usually leave a lot to be desired (by usually
   leaving a lot out or quoting out of context certain phrases). As such,
   and given the total lack of relevance of this model for anarchists
   since the 1870s, we will not bother to discuss this summary. Simply
   put, it is a waste of time to discuss an organisational model which no
   modern anarchist supports.

   Moreover, there is a key way in which Bakunin's ideas on this issue
   were far less "elitist" and more "democratic" than Lenin's model.
   Simply, Bakunin always stressed that his organisation "rules out any
   idea of dictatorship and custodial control." [Michael Bakunin: Selected
   Writings, p. 172] The "main purpose and task of the organisation," he
   argued, would be to "help the people to achieve self-determination." It
   would "not threaten the liberty of the people because it is free from
   all official character" and "not placed above the people like state
   power." Its programme "consists of the fullest realisation of the
   liberty of the people" and its influence is "not contrary to the free
   development and self-determination of the people, or its organisation
   from below according to its own customs and instincts because it acts
   on the people only by the natural personal influence of its members who
   are not invested with any power." Thus the revolutionary group would be
   the "helper" of the masses, with an "organisation within the people
   itself."
   [quoted by Michael Confino, Daughter of a Revolutionary, p. 259, p.
   261, p. 256 and p. 261] The revolution itself would see "an end to all
   masters and to domination of every kind, and the free construction of
   popular life in accordance with popular needs, not from above downward,
   as in the state, but from below upward, by the people themselves,
   dispensing with all governments and parliaments - a voluntary alliance
   of agricultural and factory worker associations, communes, provinces,
   and nations; and, finally, . . . universal human brotherhood triumphing
   on the ruins of all the states." [Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, p. 33]
   In other words, Bakunin saw the social revolution in terms of popular
   participation and control, not the seizing of power by a
   "revolutionary" party or group.

   Unlike Lenin, Bakunin did not confuse party power with people power.
   His organisation, for all it faults (and they were many), did not aim
   to take power in the name of the working class and exercise power
   through a centralised, top-down state. Rather, its would be based on
   the "natural influence" of its members within mass organisations. The
   influence of anarchists would, therefore, be limited to the level by
   which their specific ideas were accepted by other members of the same
   organisations after discussion and debate. As regards the nature of the
   labour movement, we must point out that Bakunin provided the same
   "serious" answer as the anarcho-syndicalists - namely, revolutionary
   labour unionism. As we discuss in [50]section H.2.8, Bakunin's ideas on
   this matter are nearly identical to those of the syndicalists Stack
   praises.

   As noted, however, no anarchist group has reproduced the internal
   structure of the Alliance, which means that Stack's point is simply
   historical in nature. Sadly this is not the case with his own politics
   as the ideas he attacks actually parallel Lenin's model in many ways
   (although, as indicated above, how Bakunin's organisation would
   function in the class struggle was fundamentally different, as Lenin's
   party sought power for itself). Given that Stack is proposing Lenin's
   model as a viable means of organising revolutionaries, it is useful to
   summarise it. We shall take as an example two statements issued by the
   Second World Congress of the Communist International in 1920 under the
   direction of Lenin. These are "Twenty-One Conditions of Communism" and
   "Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian
   Revolution." These two documents provide a vision of Leninist
   organisation which is fundamentally elitist.

   Lenin's "model" is clear from these documents. The parties adhering to
   the Communist International had to have two overlapping forms, one
   legal (i.e. public) and another "illegal" (i.e. secret). It was the
   "duty" of these parties "to create everywhere a parallel illegal
   organisational apparatus." [Proceedings and Documents of the Second
   Congress 1920, vol. 2, p. 767] Needless to say, this illegal
   organisation would be the real controlling body, as it would have to be
   made up of trusted communists and could only be even more tightly
   centralised than the open party as its members could only be appointed
   from above by the illegal organisation's central committee. To stress
   that the "illegal" (i.e. secret) organisation controlled the party, the
   Communist International agreed that that "[i]n countries where the
   bourgeoisie . . . is still in power, the Communist parties must learn
   to combine legal and illegal activity in a planned way. However, the
   legal work must be placed under the actual control of the illegal party
   at all times." [Op. Cit., vol. 1, p. 198-9] In this, it should be
   noted, the Leninists followed Marx's in 1850 comments (which he later
   rejected) on the need to "establish an independent secret and public
   organisation of the workers' party." [Collected Works, vol. 10, p. 282]

   Even in its open, public mode, the Communist Party was to be a highly
   centralised organisation, with all decisions on the national level made
   by the Central Committee. The parties must be as centralised as
   possible, with a party centre which has strength and authority and is
   equipped with the most comprehensive powers. Also, the party press and
   other publications, and all party publishing houses, must be
   subordinated to the party presidium. This applied on an international
   level as well, with the decisions of the Communist International's
   Executive Committee binding on all parties belonging to it. [Op. Cit.,
   vol. 2, p. 769] Moreover, "Communist cells of all kinds must be
   subordinate to each other in a strictly hierarchical order of rank as
   precisely as possible." Democratic centralism itself was fundamentally
   hierarchical, with its "basic principles" being that "the higher bodies
   shall be elected by the lower, that all instructions of the higher
   bodies are categorically and necessarily binding on the lower." Indeed,
   "there shall be a strong party centre whose authority is universally
   and unquestionably recognised for all leading party comrades in the
   period between congresses." Any "advocacy of broad 'autonomy' for the
   local party organisations only weakens the ranks of the Communist
   Party" and "favours petty-bourgeois, anarchist and disruptive
   tendencies." [Op. Cit., vol. 1, p. 198]

   It seems strange for Stack to argue that Bakunin's ideas (assuming he
   presents an honest account of them, of course) were "far more elitist
   and less democratic than Lenin's model" as they obviously were not.
   Indeed, the similarities between Stack's summary of Bakunin's ideas and
   Leninist theory are striking. The Leninist party has the same division
   between open and secret (legal and illegal) structures as in Bakunin's,
   the same centralism and top-down nature. Lenin argued that "[i]n all
   countries, even in those that are freest, most 'legal,' and most
   'peaceful' . . . it is now absolutely indispensable for every Communist
   Party to systematically combine legal and illegal work, legal and
   illegal organisation." He stressed that "[o]nly the most reactionary
   philistine, no matter what cloak of fine 'democratic' and pacifist
   phrases he may don, will deny this fact or the conclusion that of
   necessity follows from it, viz., that all legal Communist parties must
   immediately form illegal organisations for the systematic conduct of
   illegal work." [Collected Works, vol. 31, p. 195] This was due to the
   threat of state repression, which also faced Bakunin's Alliance. As
   Murray Bookchin argued, "Bakunin's emphasis on conspiracy and secrecy
   can be understood only against the social background of Italy, Spain,
   and Russia the three countries in Europe where conspiracy and secrecy
   were matters of sheer survival." [The Spanish Anarchists, p. 24]

   For anarchists, the similarity in structure between Bakunin and Lenin
   is no source of embarrassment. Rather, we argue that it is due to a
   similarity in political conditions in Russia and not similarities in
   political ideas. If we look at Bakunin's ideas on social revolution and
   the workers' movement we see a fully libertarian perspective - of a
   movement from the bottom-up, based on the principles of direct action,
   self-management and federalism. Anarchists since his death have applied
   these ideas to the specific anarchist organisation as well, rejecting
   the non-libertarian elements of Bakunin's ideas which Stack correctly
   (if somewhat hypocritically and dishonestly) denounces. All in all,
   Stack has shown himself to be a hypocrite or, at best, a "most
   reactionary philistine" (to use Lenin's choice expression).

   In addition, it would be useful to evaluate the effectiveness of
   Stack's Leninist alternative. Looking at the outcome of the Russian
   Revolution, we can only surmise that it is not very effective. This was
   because its goal is meant to be a socialist society based on soviet
   democracy. Did the Russian Revolution actually result in such a
   society? Far from it. The Kronstadt revolt was repressed in 1921
   because it demanded soviet democracy. Nor was this an isolated example.
   The Bolsheviks had been disbanding soviets with elected non-Bolshevik
   majorities since early 1918 (i.e. before the start of the Civil War)
   and by 1920 leading Bolsheviks were arguing that dictatorship of the
   proletariat could only be expressed by means of the dictatorship of the
   party. Clearly, the Bolshevik method is hardly "effective" in the sense
   of achieving its stated goals. Nor was it particularly effective before
   the revolution either. During the 1905 revolution, the Bolsheviks
   opposed the councils of workers' deputies (soviets) which had been
   formed and gave them an ultimatum: either accept the programme of the
   Bolsheviks or else disband! The soviets ignored them. In February 1917
   the Bolshevik party opposed the actions that produced the revolution
   which overthrew the Tsar. Simply put, the one event that validates the
   Bolshevik model is the October Revolution of 1917 and even that failed
   (see [51]section H.5.12).

   Moreover, it backfires on his own politics. The very issues which Stack
   raises as being "elitist" in Bakunin (secret and open organisation,
   centralisation, top-down decision making) are shared by Lenin. Given
   that no other anarchist organisation has ever followed the Alliance
   structure (and, indeed, it is even doubtful the Alliance followed it!),
   it makes a mockery of the scientific method to base a generalisation on
   an exception rather than the norm (indeed, the only exception). For
   Stack to use Bakunin's ideas on this issue as some kind of evidence
   against anarchism staggers belief. Given that anarchists reject
   Bakunin's ideas on this subject while Leninists continue to subscribe
   to Lenin's, it is very clear that Stack is being extremely hypocritical
   in this matter.

   One of Stack's comrades in the SWP highlighted another of the great
   Marxist myths about anarchist organisation when he stated categorically
   that "[a]ll the major anarchist organisations in history have been
   centralised but have operated in secret." As evidence they echo Stack's
   distortions of Bakunin's Alliance before stating that the "anarchist
   organisation inside the Spanish C.N.T., the F.A.I., was centralised and
   secret. A revolutionary party thrives on open debate and common
   struggle with wider groups of workers." [Socialist Worker, no. 1714,
   16/09/2000]

   It is just as well it stated "all the major anarchist organisations" as
   it is vague enough to allow the denial of obvious counter-examples as
   not being "major" enough. We can point to hundreds of anarchist
   organisations that are/were not secret. For example, the Italian
   Anarchist Union (UAI) was a non-secret organisation. Given that it had
   around 20,000 members in 1920, we wonder by what criteria the SWP
   excludes it from being a "major anarchist organisation"? After all,
   estimates of the membership of the F.A.I. vary from around 6,000 to
   around 30,000. Bakunin's "Alliance" amounted to, at most, under 100. In
   terms of size, the UAI was equal to the F.A.I. and outnumbered the
   "Alliance" considerably. Why was the UAI not a "major anarchist
   organisation"? Then there are the French anarchist organisations. In
   the 1930, the Union Anarchiste had over 2,000 members, an influential
   newspaper and organised many successful public meetings and campaigns
   (see David Berry's A History of the French Anarchist movement,
   1917-1945 for details). Surely that counts as a "major anarchist
   organisation"? Today, the French Anarchist Federation has a weekly
   newspaper and groups all across France as well as in Belgium. That is
   not secret and is one of the largest anarchist organisations in the
   world. We wonder why the SWP excluded such examples? Needless to say,
   all of these were based on federal structures rather than centralised
   ones.

   As for the Spanish Anarchists, the common Leninist notion that it was
   centralised seems to flow from Felix Morrow's assertion that "Spanish
   Anarchism had in the FAI a highly centralised party apparatus through
   which it maintained control of the CNT." [Revolution and
   Counter-Revolution in Spain, p. 100] Like the SWP, no attempt was made
   to provide evidence to support this claim. It undoubtedly flows from
   the dogmatic Leninist belief that centralism is automatically more
   efficient than federalism combined with the fact that the Leninists
   could not take over the CNT. However, in reality, the FAI neither
   controlled the CNT nor was it centralised or secret.

   The FAI - the Iberian Anarchist Federation - was a federation of
   regional federations (including the Portuguese Anarchist Union). These
   regional federations, in turn, were federations of highly autonomous
   anarchist affinity groups. "Like the CNT," noted Murray Bookchin, "the
   FAI was structured along confederal lines . . . Almost as a matter of
   second nature, dissidents were permitted a considerable amount of
   freedom in voicing and publishing material against the leadership and
   established policies." The FAI "was more loosely jointed as an
   organisation than many of its admirers and critics seem to recognise.
   It has no bureaucratic apparatus, no membership cards or dues, and no
   headquarters with paid officials, secretaries, and clerks. . . They
   jealously guarded the autonomy of their affinity groups from the
   authority of higher organisational bodies - a state of mind hardly
   conducive to the development of a tightly knit, vanguard organisation .
   . . It had no official program by which all faistas could mechanically
   guide their actions." [The Spanish Anarchists, pp. 197-8] So regardless
   of Morrow's claims, the FAI was a federation of autonomous affinity
   groups in which, as one member put it, "[e]ach FAI group thought and
   acted as it deemed fit, without bothering about what the others might
   be thinking or deciding . . . they had no . . . opportunity or
   jurisdiction . . . to foist a party line upon the grass-roots."
   [Francisco Carrasquer, quoted by Stuart Christie, We, the Anarchists!,
   p. 28]

   Was the F.A.I. a "secret" organisation? When it was founded in 1927,
   Spain was under the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and so it was
   illegal and secret by necessity. As Stuart Christie correctly notes,
   "[a]s an organisation publicly committed to the overthrow of the
   dictatorship, the F.A.I. functioned, from 1927 to 1931, as an illegal
   rather than a secret organisation. From the birth of the Republic in
   1931 onwards, the F.A.I. was simply an organisation which, until 1937,
   refused to register as an organisation as required by Republican Law."
   [Op. Cit., p. 24] Thus it was illegal rather than secret. As one
   anarchist militant asked, "[i]f it was secret, how come I was able to
   attend F.A.I. meetings without ever having joined or paid dues to the
   'specific' organisation?" [Francesco Carrasquer, quoted by Christie,
   Op. Cit., p. 24] The organisation held public meetings, attended by
   thousands, as well as journals and newspapers. Its most notable
   members, such as Durruti, hardly kept their affiliation secret.
   Moreover, given the periods of repression suffered by the Spanish
   libertarian movement throughout its history (including being banned and
   forced underground during the Republic) being an illegal organisation
   made perfect sense. The SWP, like most Marxists, ignore historical
   context and so mislead the reader.

   Did the F.A.I. ignore "open debate and common struggle." No, of course
   not. The members of the F.A.I. were also members of the C.N.T. The
   C.N.T. was based around mass assemblies in which all members could
   speak. It was here that members of the F.A.I. took part in forming
   C.N.T. policy along with other C.N.T. members. Anarchists in the C.N.T.
   who were not members of the F.A.I. indicate this. Jose Borras
   Casacarosa noted that "[o]ne has to recognise that the F.A.I. did not
   intervene in the C.N.T. from above or in an authoritarian manner as did
   other political parties in the unions. It did so from the base through
   militants . . . the decisions which determined the course taken by the
   C.N.T. were taken under constant pressure from these militants." Jose
   Campos states that F.A.I. militants "tended to reject control of
   confederal committees and only accepted them on specific occasions . .
   . if someone proposed a motion in assembly, the other F.A.I. members
   would support it, usually successfully. It was the individual standing
   of the faista in open assembly." [quoted by Stuart Christie, Op. Cit.,
   p. 62] It should be remembered that at union conferences and congresses
   the "delegates, whether or not they were members of the FAI, were
   presenting resolutions adopted by their unions at open membership
   meetings. Actions taken at the congress had to be reported back to
   their unions at open meetings, and given the degree of union education
   among the members, it was impossible for delegates to support personal,
   non-representative positions." [Juan Gomez Casas, Anarchist
   Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 121]

   Significantly, it should be noted that Morrow was re-cycling an
   argument which was produced by the reformist wing of the CNT in the
   1930s after it had lost influence in the union rank-and-file ("The myth
   of the FAI as conqueror and ruler of the CNT was created basically by
   the Treinistas." [Juan Gomez Casas, Op. Cit., p. 134] ). That a
   Trotskyist should repeat the arguments of failed bureaucrats in the CNT
   is not too surprising in that Trotskyism itself is simply the ideology
   of Russian failed bureaucrats.

   Clearly, the standard Marxist account of anarchist organisations leave
   a lot to be desired. They concentrate on just one or two examples
   (almost always Bakunin's Alliance or the FAI, usually both) and ignore
   the vast bulk of anarchist organisations. Their accounts of the
   atypical organisations they do pick is usually flawed, particularly in
   the case of the FAI where they simply do not understand the historic
   context nor how it actually did organise. Finally, somewhat ironically,
   in their attacks on Bakunin's ideas they fail to note the similarities
   between his ideas and Lenin's and, equally significantly, the key areas
   in which they differ. All in all, anarchists would argue that it is
   Leninist ideas on the vanguard party which are "elitist," "ineffective"
   and "downright bizarre." As we discuss in [52]section H.5, the only
   thing the Leninist "revolutionary"
   party is effective for is replacing one set of bosses with a new set
   (the leaders of the party).

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append3.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech310
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci23
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH4.html#sech47
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech38
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech39
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech12
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech14
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech28
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci23
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append2.html
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech28
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech22
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj511
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html#seci38
  18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech312
  19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html#sech61
  20. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci22
  21. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech22
  22. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech22
  23. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech22
  24. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj39
  25. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH4.html
  26. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech211
  27. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html#sech56
  28. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html#sech58
  29. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
  30. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html
  31. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html
  32. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
  33. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ7.html#secj75
  34. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH4.html
  35. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html#sech61
  36. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech314
  37. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech38
  38. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca211
  39. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech12
  40. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca55
  41. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html#sech51
  42. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj210
  43. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html
  44. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj26
  45. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj25
  46. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech14
  47. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech15
  48. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html
  49. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj37
  50. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech28
  51. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html#sech512
  52. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html
