                   H.3 What are the myths of state socialism?

   Ask most people what socialism means and they will point to the Soviet
   Union, China, Cuba and a host of other authoritarian, centralised,
   exploitative and oppressive party dictatorships. These regimes have in
   common two things. Firstly, the claim that their rulers are Marxists or
   socialists. Secondly, that they have successfully alienated millions of
   working class people from the very idea of socialism. Indeed, the
   supporters of capitalism simply had to describe the "socialist
   paradises" as they really are in order to put people off socialism. The
   Stalinist regimes and their various apologists (and even "opponents",
   like the Trotskyists, who defended them as "degenerated workers'
   states") let the bourgeoisie have an easy time in dismissing all
   working-class demands and struggles as so many attempts to set up
   similar party dictatorships.

   The association of "socialism" or "communism" with these dictatorships
   has often made anarchists wary of calling themselves socialists or
   communists in case our ideas are associated with them. As Errico
   Malatesta argued in 1924:

     "I foresee the possibility that the communist anarchists will
     gradually abandon the term 'communist': it is growing in ambivalence
     and falling into disrepute as a result of Russian 'communist'
     despotism. If the term is eventually abandoned this will be a
     repetition of what happened with the word 'socialist.' We who, in
     Italy at least, were the first champions of socialism and maintained
     and still maintain that we are the true socialists in the broad and
     human sense of the word, ended by abandoning the term to avoid
     confusion with the many and various authoritarian and bourgeois
     deviations of socialism. Thus too we may have to abandon the term
     'communist' for fear that our ideal of free human solidarity will be
     confused with the avaricious despotism which has for some time
     triumphed in Russia and which one party, inspired by the Russian
     example, seeks to impose world-wide." [The Anarchist Revolution, p.
     20]

   That, to a large degree happened with anarchists simply calling
   themselves by that name (without adjectives) or libertarians to avoid
   confusion. This, sadly, resulted in two problems. Firstly, it gave
   Marxists even more potential to portray anarchism as being primarily
   against the state and not being as equally opposed to capitalism,
   hierarchy and inequality (as we argue in [1]section H.2.4, anarchists
   have opposed the state as just one aspect of class and hierarchical
   society). Secondly, extreme right-wingers tried to appropriate the
   names "libertarian" and "anarchist" to describe their vision of extreme
   capitalism as "anarchism," they claimed, was simply "anti-government"
   (see [2]section F for discussion on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not
   anarchist). To counter these distortions of anarchist ideas, many
   anarchists have re-appropriated the use of the words "socialist" and
   "communist," although always in combination with the words "anarchist"
   and "libertarian."

   Such combination of words is essential as the problem Malatesta
   predicted still remains. If one thing can be claimed for the 20th
   century, it is that it has seen the word "socialism" become narrowed
   and restricted into what anarchists call "state socialism" - socialism
   created and run from above, by the state (i.e. by the state bureaucracy
   and better described as state capitalism). This restriction of
   "socialism" has been supported by both Stalinist and Capitalist ruling
   elites, for their own reasons (the former to secure their own power and
   gain support by associating themselves with socialist ideals, the
   latter by discrediting those ideas by associating them with the horror
   of Stalinism). The Stalinist "leadership thus portrays itself as
   socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western
   ideologists adopt the same pretence in order to forestall the threat of
   a more free and just society." The latter use it as "a powerful
   ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience," to "ensure
   that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these
   [capitalist] institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law,
   the only alternative to the 'socialist' dungeon." In reality, "if there
   is a relation" between Bolshevism and socialism, "it is the relation of
   contradiction." ["The Soviet Union versus Socialism", pp. 47-52, The
   Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), pp. 47-8]

   This means that anarchists and other libertarian socialists have a
   major task on their hands - to reclaim the promise of socialism from
   the distortions inflicted upon it by both its enemies (Stalinists and
   capitalists) and its erstwhile and self-proclaimed supporters (Social
   Democracy and its offspring Bolshevism). A key aspect of this process
   is a critique of both the practice and ideology of Marxism and its
   various offshoots. Only by doing this can anarchists prove, to quote
   Rocker, that "Socialism will be free, or it will not be at all."
   [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 14]

   Such a critique raises the problem of which forms of "Marxism" to
   discuss. There is an extremely diverse range of Marxist viewpoints and
   groups in existence. Indeed, the different groups spend a lot of time
   indicating why all the others are not "real" Marxists (or
   Marxist-Leninists, or Trotskyists, and so on) and are just "sects"
   without "real" Marxist theory or ideas. This "diversity" is, of course,
   a major problem (and somewhat ironic, given that some Marxists like to
   insult anarchists by stating there are as many forms of anarchism as
   anarchists!). Equally, many Marxists go further than dismissing
   specific groups. Some even totally reject other branches of their
   movement as being non-Marxist (for example, some Marxists dismiss
   Leninism as having little, or nothing, to do with what they consider
   the "real" Marxist tradition to be). This means that discussing Marxism
   can be difficult as Marxists can argue that our FAQ does not address
   the arguments of this or that Marxist thinker, group or tendency.

   With this in mind, this section of the FAQ will concentrate on the
   works of Marx and Engels (and so the movement they generated, namely
   Social Democracy) as well as the Bolshevik tradition started by Lenin
   and continued (by and large) by Trotsky. These are the core thinkers
   (and the recognised authorities) of most Marxists and so latter
   derivations of these tendencies can be ignored (for example Maoism,
   Castroism and so on). It should also be noted that even this grouping
   will produce dissent as some Marxists argue that the Bolshevik
   tradition is not part of Marxism. This perspective can be seen in the
   "impossiblist" tradition of Marxism (e.g. the Socialist Party of Great
   Britain and its sister parties) as well as in the left/council
   communist tradition (e.g. in the work of such Marxists as Anton
   Pannekoek and Paul Mattick). The arguments for their positions are
   strong and well worth reading (indeed, any honest analysis of Marxism
   and Leninism cannot help but show important differences between the
   two). However, as the vast majority of Marxists today are also
   Leninists, we have to reflect this in our FAQ (and, in general, we do
   so by referring to "mainstream Marxists" as opposed to the small
   minority of libertarian Marxists).

   Another problem arises when we consider the differences not only
   between Marxist tendencies, but also within a specific tendency before
   and after its representatives seize power. For example, as Chomsky
   pointed out, "there are . . . very different strains of Leninism . . .
   there's the Lenin of 1917, the Lenin of the 'April Theses' and State
   and Revolution. That's one Lenin. And then there's the Lenin who took
   power and acted in ways that are unrecognisable . . . compared with,
   say, the doctrines of 'State and Revolution.' . . . this [is] not very
   hard to explain. There's a big difference between the libertarian
   doctrines of a person who is trying to associate himself with a mass
   popular movement to acquire power and the authoritarian power of
   somebody who's taken power and is trying to consolidate it. . . that is
   true of Marx also. There are competing strains in Marx." As such, this
   section of our FAQ will try and draw out the contradictions within
   Marxism and indicate what aspects of the doctrine aided the development
   of the "second" Lenin for the seeds from which authoritarianism grew
   post-October 1917 existed from the start. Anarchists agree with
   Chomsky, namely that he considered it "characteristic and unfortunate
   that the lesson that was drawn from Marx and Lenin for the later period
   was the authoritarian lesson. That is, it's the authoritarian power of
   the vanguard party and destruction of all popular forums in the
   interests of the masses. That's the Lenin who became know to later
   generations. Again, not very surprisingly, because that's what Leninism
   really was in practice." [Language and Politics, p. 152]

   Ironically, given Marx's own comments on the subject, a key hindrance
   to such an evaluation is the whole idea and history of Marxism itself.
   While, as Murray Bookchin noted "to his lasting credit," Marx tried (to
   some degree) "to create a movement that looks to the future instead of
   to the past," his followers have not done so. "Once again," Bookchin
   argued, "the dead are walking in our midst - ironically, draped in the
   name of Marx, the man who tried to bury the dead of the nineteenth
   century. So the revolution of our own day can do nothing better than
   parody, in turn, the October Revolution of 1918 and the civil war of
   1918-1920 . . . The complete, all-sided revolution of our own day . . .
   follows the partial, the incomplete, the one-sided revolutions of the
   past, which merely changed the form of the 'social question,' replacing
   one system of domination and hierarchy by another." [Post-Scarcity
   Anarchism, p. 108 and p. 109] In Marx's words, the "tradition of all
   the dead generations weighs down like a nightmare on the brain of the
   living." Yet his own work, and the movements it inspired, now add to
   this dead-weight. In order to ensure, as Marx put it, the social
   revolution draws is poetry from the future rather than the past,
   Marxism itself must be transcended.

   Which, of course, means evaluating both the theory and practice of
   Marxism. For anarchists, it seems strange that for a body of work whose
   followers stress is revolutionary and liberating, its results have been
   so bad. If Marxism is so obviously revolutionary and democratic, then
   why have so few of the people who read it drawn those conclusions? How
   could it be transmuted so easily into Stalinism? Why are there so few
   libertarian Marxists, if it were Lenin (or, following Lenin, Social
   Democracy) which "misinterpreted" Marx and Engels? So when Marxists
   argue that the problem is in the interpretation of the message not in
   the message itself, anarchists reply that the reason these numerous,
   allegedly false, interpretations exist at all simply suggests that
   there are limitations within Marxism as such rather than the readings
   it has been subjected to. When something repeatedly fails and produces
   such terrible results in the progress then there has to be a
   fundamental flaw somewhere. Thus Cornelius Castoriadis:

     "Marx was, in fact, the first to stress that the significance of a
     theory cannot be grasped independently of the historical and social
     practice it inspires and initiates, to which it gives rise, in which
     it prolongs itself and under cover of which a given practice seeks
     to justify itself.

     "Who, today, would dare proclaim that the only significance of
     Christianity for history is to be found in reading unaltered
     versions of the Gospels or that the historical practice of various
     Churches over a period of some 2,000 years can teach us nothing
     fundamental about the significance of this religious movement? A
     'faithfulness to Marx' which would see the historical fate of
     Marxism as something unimportant would be just as laughable. It
     would in fact be quite ridiculous. Whereas for the Christian the
     revelations of the Gospels have a transcendental kernel and an
     intemporal validity, no theory could ever have such qualities in the
     eyes of a Marxist. To seek to discover the meaning of Marxism only
     in what Marx wrote (while keeping quiet about what the doctrine has
     become in history) is to pretend - in flagrant contradiction with
     the central ideas of that doctrine - that real history doesn't count
     and that the truth of a theory is always and exclusively to be found
     'further on.' It finally comes to replacing revolution by revelation
     and the understanding of events by the exegesis of texts."
     ["The Fate of Marxism," pp. 75-84 The Anarchist Papers, Dimitrios
     Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 77]

   This does not mean forsaking the work of Marx and Engels. It means
   rejecting once and for all the idea that two people, writing over a
   period of decades over a hundred years ago have all the answers. As
   should be obvious! Ultimately, anarchists think we have to build upon
   the legacy of the past, not squeeze current events into it. We should
   stand on the shoulders of giants, not at their feet.

   Thus this section of our FAQ will attempt to explain the various myths
   of Marxism and provide an anarchist critique of it and its offshoots.
   Of course, the ultimate myth of Marxism is what Alexander Berkman
   called "The Bolshevik Myth," namely the idea that the Russian
   Revolution was a success. However, given the scope of this revolution,
   we will not discuss it fully here except when it provides useful
   empirical evidence for our critique (see [3]section H.6 for more on the
   Russian Revolution). Our discussion here will concentrate for the most
   part on Marxist theory, showing its inadequacies, its problems, where
   it appropriated anarchist ideas and how anarchism and Marxism differ.
   This is a big task and this section of the FAQ can only be a small
   contribution to it.

   As noted above, there are minority trends in Marxism which are
   libertarian in nature (i.e. close to anarchism). As such, it would be
   simplistic to say that anarchists are "anti-Marxist" and we generally
   do differentiate between the (minority) libertarian element and the
   authoritarian mainstream of Marxism (i.e. Social-Democracy and Leninism
   in its many forms). Without doubt, Marx contributed immensely to the
   enrichment of socialist ideas and analysis (as acknowledged by Bakunin,
   for example). His influence, as to be expected, was both positive and
   negative. For this reason he must be read and discussed critically.
   This FAQ is a contribution to this task of transcending the work of
   Marx. As with anarchist thinkers, we must take what is useful from Marx
   and reject the rubbish. But never forget that anarchists are anarchists
   precisely because we think that anarchist thinkers have got more right
   than wrong and we reject the idea of tying our politics to the name of
   a long dead thinker.

H.3.1 Do Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing?

   Ultimately, the greatest myth of Marxism is the idea that anarchists
   and most Marxists want the same thing. Indeed, it could be argued that
   it is anarchist criticism of Marxism which has made them stress the
   similarity of long term goals with anarchism. "Our polemics against
   [the Marxists]," Bakunin argued, "have forced them to recognise that
   freedom, or anarchy - that is, the voluntary organisation of the
   workers from below upward - is the ultimate goal of social
   development." He stressed that the means to this apparently similar end
   were different. The Marxists "say that [a] state yoke, [a]
   dictatorship, is a necessary transitional device for achieving the
   total liberation of the people: anarchy, or freedom, is the goal, and
   the state, or dictatorship, is the means . . . We reply that no
   dictatorship can have any other objective than to perpetuate itself,
   and that it can engender and nurture only slavery in the people who
   endure it. Liberty can be created only by liberty, by an insurrection
   of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from
   below upwards." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 179]

   As such, it is commonly taken for granted that the ends of both
   Marxists and Anarchists are the same, we just disagree over the means.
   However, within this general agreement over the ultimate end (a
   classless and stateless society), the details of such a society are
   somewhat different. This, perhaps, is to be expected given the
   differences in means. As is obvious from Bakunin's argument, anarchists
   stress the unity of means and goals, that the means which are used
   affect the goal reached. This unity between means and ends is expressed
   well by Martin Buber's observation that "[o]ne cannot in the nature of
   things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put
   forth leaves." [Paths in Utopia, p. 127] In summary, we cannot expect
   to reach our end destination if we take a path going in the opposite
   direction. As such, the agreement on ends may not be as close as often
   imagined.

   So when it is stated that anarchists and state socialists want the same
   thing, the following should be borne in mind. Firstly, there are key
   differences on the question of current tactics. Secondly, there is the
   question of the immediate aims of a revolution. Thirdly, there is the
   long term goals of such a revolution. These three aspects form a
   coherent whole, with each one logically following on from the last. As
   we will show, the anarchist and Marxist vision of each aspect are
   distinctly different, so suggesting that the short, medium and long
   term goals of each theory are, in fact, different. We will discuss each
   aspect in turn.

   First, there is the question of the nature of the revolutionary
   movement. Here anarchists and most Marxists have distinctly opposing
   ideas. The former argue that both the revolutionary organisation (i.e.
   an anarchist federation) and the wider labour movement should be
   organised in line with the vision of society which inspires us. This
   means that it should be a federation of self-managed groups based on
   the direct participation of its membership in the decision making
   process. Power, therefore, is decentralised and there is no division
   between those who make the decisions and those who execute them. We
   reject the idea of others acting on our behalf or on behalf of the
   people and so urge the use of direct action and solidarity, based upon
   working class self-organisation, self-management and autonomy. Thus,
   anarchists apply their ideas in the struggle against the current
   system, arguing what is "efficient" from a hierarchical or class
   position is deeply inefficient from a revolutionary perspective.

   Marxists disagree. Most Marxists are also Leninists. They argue that we
   must form a "vanguard" party based on the principles of "democratic
   centralism" complete with institutionalised and hierarchical
   leadership. They argue that how we organise today is independent of the
   kind of society we seek and that the party should aim to become the
   recognised leadership of the working class. Every thing they do is
   subordinated to this end, meaning that no struggle is seen as an end in
   itself but rather as a means to gaining membership and influence for
   the party until such time as it gathers enough support to seize power.
   As this is a key point of contention between anarchists and Leninists,
   we discuss this in some detail in [4]section H.5 and its related
   sections and so not do so here.

   Obviously, in the short term anarchists and Leninists cannot be said to
   want the same thing. While we seek a revolutionary movement based on
   libertarian (i.e. revolutionary) principles, the Leninists seek a party
   based on distinctly bourgeois principles of centralisation, delegation
   of power and representative over direct democracy. Both, of course,
   argue that only their system of organisation is effective and efficient
   (see [5]section H.5.8 on a discussion why anarchists argue that the
   Leninist model is not effective from a revolutionary perspective). The
   anarchist perspective is to see the revolutionary organisation as part
   of the working class, encouraging and helping those in struggle to
   clarify the ideas they draw from their own experiences and its role is
   to provide a lead rather than a new set of leaders to be followed (see
   [6]section J.3.6 for more on this). The Leninist perspective is to see
   the revolutionary party as the leadership of the working class,
   introducing socialist consciousness into a class which cannot generate
   itself (see [7]section H.5.1).

   Given the Leninist preference for centralisation and a leadership role
   by hierarchical organisation, it will come as no surprise that their
   ideas on the nature of post-revolutionary society are distinctly
   different from anarchists. While there is a tendency for Leninists to
   deny that anarchists have a clear idea of what will immediately be
   created by a revolution (see [8]section H.1.4), we do have concrete
   ideas on the kind of society a revolution will immediately create. This
   vision is in almost every way different from that proposed by most
   Marxists.

   Then there is the question of the state. Anarchists, unsurprisingly
   enough, seek to destroy it. Simply put, while anarchists want a
   stateless and classless society and advocate the means appropriate to
   those ends, most Marxists argue that in order to reach a stateless
   society we need a new "workers'" state, a state, moreover, in which
   their party will be in charge. Trotsky, writing in 1906, made this
   clear: "Every political party deserving of the name aims at seizing
   governmental power and thus putting the state at the service of the
   class whose interests it represents." [quoted by Israel Getzler,
   Marxist Revolutionaries and the Dilemma of Power, p. 105] This fits in
   with Marx's and Engels's repeated equation of universal suffrage with
   the political power or political supremacy of the working class. In
   other words, "political power" simply means the ability to nominate a
   government (see [9]section H.3.10).

   While Marxists like to portray this new government as "the dictatorship
   of the proletariat," anarchist argue that, in fact, it will be the
   dictatorship over the proletariat. This is because if the working class
   is the ruling class (as Marxists claim) then, anarchists argue, how can
   they delegate their power to a government and remain so? Either the
   working class directly manages its own affairs (and so society) or the
   government does. Any state is simply rule by a few and so is
   incompatible with socialism (we discuss this issue in [10]section
   H.3.7). The obvious implication of this is that Marxism seeks party
   rule, not working class direct management of society (as we discuss in
   [11]section H.3.8, the Leninist tradition is extremely clear on this
   matter).

   Then there is the question of the building blocks of socialism. Yet
   again, there is a clear difference between anarchism and Marxism.
   Anarchists have always argued that the basis of socialism is working
   class organisations, created in the struggle against capitalism and the
   state. This applies to both the social and economic structure of a
   post-revolutionary society. For most forms of Marxism, a radically
   different picture has been the dominant one. As we discuss in
   [12]section H.3.10, Marxists only reached a similar vision for the
   political structure of socialism in 1917 when Lenin supported the
   soviets as the framework of his workers' state. However, as we prove in
   [13]section H.3.11, he did so for instrumental purposes only, namely as
   the best means of assuring Bolshevik power. If the soviets clashed with
   the party, it was the latter which took precedence. Unsurprisingly, the
   Bolshevik mainstream moved from "All Power to the Soviets" to
   "dictatorship of the party" rather quickly. Thus, unlike anarchism,
   most forms of Marxism aim for party power, a "revolutionary" government
   above the organs of working class self-management.

   Economically, there are also clear differences. Anarchists have
   consistently argued that the workers "ought to be the real managers of
   industries." [Peter Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workshops
   Tomorrow, p. 157] To achieve this, we have pointed to various
   organisations over time, such as factory committees and labour unions.
   As we discuss in more detail in [14]section H.3.12, Lenin, in contrast,
   saw socialism as being constructed on the basis of structures and
   techniques (including management ones) developed under capitalism.
   Rather than see socialism as being built around new, working class
   organisations, Lenin saw it being constructed on the basis of
   developments in capitalist organisation. "The Leninist road to
   socialism," notes one expert on Lenin, "emphatically ran through the
   terrain of monopoly capitalism. It would, according to Lenin, abolish
   neither its advanced technological base nor its institutionalised means
   for allocating resources or structuring industry. . . The
   institutionalised framework of advanced capitalism could, to put it
   shortly, be utilised for realisation of specifically socialist goals.
   They were to become, indeed, the principal (almost exclusive)
   instruments of socialist transformation." [Neil Harding, Leninism,
   p.145]

   The role of workers' in this vision was basically unchanged. Rather
   than demand, like anarchists, workers' self-management of production in
   1917, Lenin raised the demand for "country-wide, all-embracing workers'
   control over the capitalists" (and this is the "important thing", not
   "confiscation of the capitalists' property") [The Lenin Anthology, p.
   402] Once the Bolsheviks were in power, the workers' own organs (the
   factory committees) were integrated into a system of state control,
   losing whatever power they once held at the point of production. Lenin
   then modified this vision by replacing capitalists with (state
   appointed) "one-man management" over the workers (see [15]section
   H.3.14). In other words, a form of state capitalism in which workers
   would still be wage slaves under bosses appointed by the state.
   Unsurprisingly, the "control" workers exercised over their bosses (i.e.
   those with real power in production) proved to be as elusive in
   production as it was in the state. In this, Lenin undoubtedly followed
   the lead of the Communist Manifesto which stressed state ownership of
   the means of production without a word about workers' self-management
   of production. As we discuss in [16]section H.3.13, state "socialism"
   cannot help being "state capitalism" by its very nature.

   Needless to say, as far as means go, few anarchists and syndicalists
   are complete pacifists. As syndicalist Emile Pouget argued, "[h]istory
   teaches that the privileged have never surrendered their privileges
   without having been compelled so to do and forced into it by their
   rebellious victims. It is unlikely that the bourgeoisie is blessed with
   an exceptional greatness of soul and will abdicate voluntarily" and so
   "[r]ecourse to force . . . will be required." [The Party Of Labour]
   This does not mean that libertarians glorify violence or argue that all
   forms of violence are acceptable (quite the reverse!), it simply means
   that for self-defence against violent opponents violence is,
   unfortunately, sometimes required.

   The way an anarchist revolution would defend itself also shows a key
   difference between anarchism and Marxism. As we discussed in
   [17]section H.2.1, anarchists (regardless of Marxist claims) have
   always argued that a revolution needs to defend itself. This would be
   organised in a federal, bottom-up way as the social structure of a free
   society. It would be based on voluntary working class militias. This
   model of working class self-defence was applied successfully in both
   the Spanish and Ukrainian revolutions (by the CNT-FAI and the
   Makhnovists, respectively). In contrast, the Bolshevik method of
   defending a revolution was the top-down, hierarchical and centralised
   "Red Army". As the example of the Makhnovists showed, the "Red Army"
   was not the only way the Russian Revolution could have been defended
   although it was the only way Bolshevik power could be.

   So while Anarchists have consistently argued that socialism must be
   based on working class self-management of production and society based
   on working class organisations, the Leninist tradition has not
   supported this vision (although it has appropriated some of its imagery
   to gain popular support). Clearly, in terms of the immediate aftermath
   of a revolution, anarchists and Leninists do not seek the same thing.
   The former want a free society organised and run from below-upwards by
   the working class based on workers self-management of production while
   the latter seek party power in a new state structure which would
   preside over an essentially state capitalist economy.

   Lastly, there is the question of the long term goal. Even in this
   vision of a classless and stateless society there is very little in
   common between anarchist communism and Marxist communism, beyond the
   similar terminology used to describe it. This is blurred by the
   differences in terminology used by both theories. Marx and Engels had
   raised in the 1840s the (long term) goal of "an association, in which
   the free development of each is the condition for the free development
   of all" replacing "the old bourgeois society, with its classes and
   class antagonisms," in the Communist Manifesto. Before this "vast
   association of the whole nation" was possible, the proletariat would be
   "raise[d] . . . to the position of ruling class" and "all capital"
   would be "centralise[d] . . . in the hands of the State, i.e. of the
   proletariat organised as the ruling class." As economic classes would
   no longer exist, "the public power would lose its political character"
   as political power "is merely the organised power of one class for
   oppressing another." [Selected Works, p. 53]

   It was this, the means to the end, which was the focus of much debate
   (see [18]section H.1.1 for details). However, it cannot be assumed that
   the ends desired by Marxists and anarchists are identical. The argument
   that the "public power" could stop being "political" (i.e. a state) is
   a tautology, and a particularly unconvincing one at that. After all, if
   "political power" is defined as being an instrument of class rule it
   automatically follows that a classless society would have a
   non-political "public power" and so be without a state! This does not
   imply that a "public power" would no longer exist as a structure within
   (or, more correctly, over) society, it just implies that its role would
   no longer be "political" (i.e. an instrument of class rule). Given
   that, according to the Manifesto, the state would centralise the means
   of production, credit and transportation and then organise it "in
   accordance with a common plan" using "industrial armies, especially for
   agriculture" this would suggest that the state structure would remain
   even after its "political" aspects had, to use Engels words, "die[d]
   out." [Marx and Engels, Op. Cit., pp. 52-3 and p. 424]

   From this perspective, the difference between anarchist communism and
   Marxist-communism is clear. "While both," notes John Clark, "foresee
   the disappearance of the state, the achievement of social management of
   the economy, the end of class rule, and the attainment of human
   equality, to mention a few common goals, significant differences in
   ends still remain. Marxist thought has inherited a vision which looks
   to high development of technology with a corresponding degree of
   centralisation of social institutions which will continue even after
   the coming of the social revolution. . . . The anarchist vision sees
   the human scale as essential, both in the techniques which are used for
   production, and for the institutions which arise from the new modes of
   association . . . In addition, the anarchist ideal has a strong
   hedonistic element which has seen Germanic socialism as ascetic and
   Puritanical." [The Anarchist Moment, p. 68] Thus Marx presents "a
   formulation that calls not for the ultimate abolition of the State but
   suggests that it will continue to exist (however differently it is
   reconstituted by the proletariat) as a 'nonpolitical' (i.e.,
   administrative) source of authority." [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of
   Freedom, p. 196fn]

   Moreover, it is unlikely that such a centralised system could become
   stateless and classless in actuality. As Bakunin argued, in the Marxist
   state "there will be no privileged class. Everybody will be equal, not
   only from the judicial and political but also from the economic
   standpoint. This is the promise at any rate . . . So there will be no
   more class, but a government, and, please note, an extremely
   complicated government which, not content with governing and
   administering the masses politically . . . will also administer them
   economically, by taking over the production and fair sharing of wealth,
   agriculture, the establishment and development of factories, the
   organisation and control of trade, and lastly the injection of capital
   into production by a single banker, the State." Such a system would be,
   in reality, "the reign of the scientific mind, the most aristocratic,
   despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes" base on "a new
   class, a new hierarchy of real or bogus learning, and the world will be
   divided into a dominant, science-based minority and a vast, ignorant
   majority." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 266]

   George Barrett's words also seem appropriate:

     "The modern Socialist . . . have steadily worked for centralisation,
     and complete and perfect organisation and control by those in
     authority above the people. The anarchist, on the other hand,
     believes in the abolition of that central power, and expects the
     free society to grow into existence from below, starting with those
     organisations and free agreements among the people themselves. It is
     difficult to see how, by making a central power control everything,
     we can be making a step towards the abolition of that power."
     [Objections to Anarchism, p. 348]

   Indeed, by giving the state increased economic activities it ensures
   that this so-called "transitional" state grows with the implementation
   of the Marxist programme. Moreover, given the economic tasks the state
   now does it hardly makes much sense to assert it will "wither away" -
   unless you think that the centralised economic planning which this
   regime does also "withers away." Marx argued that once the "abolition
   of classes" has "been attained" then "the power of the State . . .
   disappears, and the functions of government are transformed into simple
   administrative functions." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and
   Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 76] In other words, the state apparatus does
   not "wither away" rather its function as an instrument of class rule
   does. This is an automatic result of classes themselves withering away
   as private property is nationalised. Yet as class is defined as being
   rooted in ownership of the means of production, this becomes a
   meaningless tautology. Obviously, as the state centralises the means of
   production into its own hands then (the existing) economic classes
   cease to exist and, as a result, the state "disappears." Yet the power
   and size of the State is, in fact, increased by this process and so the
   elimination of economic classes actually increases the power and size
   of the state machine.

   As Brain Morris notes, "Bakunin's fears that under Marx's kind of
   socialism the workers would continue to labour under a regimented,
   mechanised, hierarchical system of production, without direct control
   over their labour, has been more than confirmed by the realities of the
   Bolshevik system. Thus, Bakunin's critique of Marxism has taken on an
   increasing relevance in the age of bureaucratic State capitalism."
   [Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 132] Thus the "central
   confusions of Marxist political theorists" are found in the discussion
   on the state in The Communist Manifesto. If class is "an exclusively
   economic category, and if the old conditions of production are changed
   so that there is no longer any private ownership of the means of
   production, then classes no longer exist by definition when they are
   defined in terms of . . . the private ownership of the means of
   production . . . If Marx also defines 'political power' as 'the
   organised power of one [economic] class for oppressing another', then
   the . . . argument is no more than a tautology, and is trivially true."
   Unfortunately, as history has confirmed, "we cannot conclude . . . if
   it is a mere tautology, that with a condition of no private ownership
   of the means of production there could be no . . . dominant and
   subordinate strata." [Alan Carter, Marx: A Radical Critique, p. 221 and
   pp. 221-2]

   Unsurprisingly, therefore, anarchists are not convinced that a highly
   centralised structure (as a state is) managing the economic life of
   society can be part of a truly classless society. While economic class
   as defined in terms of ownership of the means of production may not
   exist, social classes (defined in terms of inequality of power,
   authority and control) will continue simply because the state is
   designed to create and protect minority rule (see [19]section H.3.7).
   As Bolshevik and Stalinist Russia showed, nationalising the means of
   production does not end class society. As Malatesta argued:

     "When F. Engels, perhaps to counter anarchist criticisms, said that
     once classes disappear the State as such has no raison d'tre and
     transforms itself from a government of men into an administration of
     thing, he was merely playing with words. Whoever has power over
     things has power over men; whoever governs production also governs
     the producers; who determines consumption is master over the
     consumer.

     "This is the question; either things are administered on the basis
     of free agreement of the interested parties, and this is anarchy; or
     they are administered according to laws made by administrators and
     this is government, it is the State, and inevitably it turns out to
     be tyrannical.

     "It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will of
     this or that man, but of the inevitability of the situation, and of
     the tendencies which man generally develops in given circumstances."
     [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 145]

   The anarchist vision of the future society, therefore, does not exactly
   match the state communist vision, as much as the latter would like to
   suggest it does. The difference between the two is authority, which
   cannot be anything but the largest difference possible. Anarchist
   economic and organisational theories are built around an
   anti-authoritarian core and this informs both our means and aims. For
   anarchists, the Leninist vision of socialism is unattractive. Lenin
   continually stressed that his conception of socialism and "state
   capitalism" were basically identical. Even in State and Revolution,
   allegedly Lenin's most libertarian work, we discover this particularly
   unvisionary and uninspiring vision of "socialism":

     "All citizens are transformed into the salaried employees of the
     state . . . All citizens become employees and workers of a single
     national state 'syndicate' . . . The whole of society will have
     become a single office and a single factory with equality of work
     and equality of pay." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 348]

   To which, anarchists point to Engels and his comments on the tyrannical
   and authoritarian character of the modern factory (as we discuss in
   [20]section H.4.4). Clearly, Lenin's idea of turning the world into one
   big factory takes on an extremely frightening nature given Engels'
   lovely vision of the lack of freedom in the workplace.

   For these reasons anarchists reject the simplistic Marxist analysis of
   inequality being rooted simply in economic class. Such an analysis, as
   the comments of Lenin and Engels prove, show that social inequality can
   be smuggled in by the backdoor of a proposed classless and stateless
   society. Thus Bookchin:

     "Basic to anti-authoritarian Socialism --specifically, to Anarchist
     Communism - is the notion that hierarchy and domination cannot be
     subsumed by class rule and economic exploitation, indeed, that they
     are more fundamental to an understanding of the modern revolutionary
     project . . . Power of human over human long antedates the very
     formation of classes and economic modes of social oppression. . . .
     This much is clear: it will no longer do to insist that a classless
     society, freed from material exploitation, will necessarily be a
     liberated society. There is nothing in the social future to suggest
     that bureaucracy is incompatible with a classless society, the
     domination of women, the young, ethnic groups or even professional
     strata." [Toward an Ecological Society, pp. 208-9]

   Ultimately, anarchists see that "there is a realm of domination that is
   broader than the realm of material exploitation. The tragedy of the
   socialist movement is that, steeped in the past, it uses the methods of
   domination to try to 'liberate' us from material exploitation."
   Needless to say, this is doomed to failure. Socialism "will simply mire
   us in a world we are trying to overcome. A non-hierarchical society,
   self-managed and free of domination in all its forms, stands on the
   agenda today, not a hierarchical system draped in a red flag."
   [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 272 and pp. 273-4]

   In summary, it cannot be said that anarchists and most Marxists want
   the same thing. While they often use the same terms, these terms often
   hide radically different concepts. Just because, say, anarchists and
   mainstream Marxists talk about "social revolution," "socialism," "all
   power to the soviets" and so on, it does not mean that we mean the same
   thing by them. For example, the phrase "all power to the soviets" for
   anarchists means exactly that (i.e. that the revolution must be
   directly managed by working class organs). Leninists mean "all power to
   a central government elected by a national soviet congress." Similarly
   with other similar phrases (which shows the importance of looking at
   the details of any political theory and its history).

   We have shown that discussion over ends is as important as discussion
   over means as they are related. As Kropotkin once pointed out, those
   who downplay the importance of discussing the "order of things which .
   . . should emerge from the coming revolution" in favour of
   concentrating on "practical things" are being less than honest as "far
   from making light of such theories, they propagate them, and all that
   they do now is a logical extension of their ideas. In the end those
   words 'Let us not discuss theoretical questions' really mean: 'Do not
   subject our theory to discussion, but help us to put it into
   execution.'" [Words of a Rebel, p. 200]

   Hence the need to critically evaluate both ends and means. This shows
   the weakness of the common argument that anarchists and Leftists share
   some common visions and so we should work with them to achieve those
   common things. Who knows what happens after that? As can be seen, this
   is not the case. Many aspects of anarchism and Marxism are in
   opposition and cannot be considered similar (for example, what a
   Leninist considers as socialism is extremely different to what an
   anarchist thinks it is). If you consider "socialism" as being a
   "workers' state" presided over by a "revolutionary" government, then
   how can this be reconciled with the anarchist vision of a federation of
   self-managed communes and workers' associations? As the Russian
   Revolution shows, only by the armed might of the "revolutionary"
   government crushing the anarchist vision.

   The only thing we truly share with these groups is a mutual opposition
   to existing capitalism. Having a common enemy does not make someone
   friends. Hence anarchists, while willing to work on certain mutual
   struggles, are well aware there is substantial differences in both
   terms of means and goals. The lessons of revolution in the 20th Century
   is that once in power, Leninists will repress anarchists, their current
   allies against the capitalist system. This is does not occur by
   accident, it flows from the differences in vision between the two
   movements, both in terms of means and goals.

H.3.2 Is Marxism "socialism from below"?

   Some Marxists, such as the International Socialist Tendency, like to
   portray their tradition as being "socialism from below." Under
   "socialism from below," they place the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and
   Trotsky, arguing that they and they alone have continued this, the
   true, ideal of socialism (Hal Draper's essay "The Two Souls of
   Socialism" seems to have been the first to argue along these lines).
   They contrast this idea of socialism "from below" with "socialism from
   above," in which they place reformist socialism (social democracy,
   Labourism, etc.), elitist socialism (Lassalle and others who wanted
   educated and liberal members of the middle classes to liberate the
   working class) and Stalinism (bureaucratic dictatorship over the
   working class). Anarchism, it is argued, should be placed in the latter
   camp, with Proudhon and Bakunin showing that anarchist libertarianism
   simply a "myth".

   For those who uphold this idea, "Socialism from below" is simply the
   self-emancipation of the working class by its own efforts. To anarchist
   ears, the claim that Marxism (and in particular Leninism) is socialism
   "from below" sounds paradoxical, indeed laughable. This is because
   anarchists from Proudhon onwards have used the imagery of socialism
   being created and run from below upwards. They have been doing so for
   far longer than Marxists have. As such, "socialism from below" simply
   sums up the anarchist ideal!

   Thus we find Proudhon in 1848 talking about being a "revolutionary from
   below" and that every "serious and lasting Revolution" was "made from
   below, by the people." A "Revolution from above" was "pure
   governmentalism," "the negation of collective activity, of popular
   spontaneity" and is "the oppression of the wills of those below."
   [quoted by George Woodcock, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 143] For
   Proudhon, the means of this revolution "from below" would be
   federations of working class associations for both credit (mutual
   banks) and production (workers' associations or co-operatives) as well
   as federations of communes (democratically organised communities). The
   workers, "organised among themselves, without the assistance of the
   capitalist" would march by "[w]ork to the conquest of the world" by the
   "force of principle." Thus capitalism would be reformed away by the
   actions of the workers themselves. The "problem of association,"
   Proudhon argued, "consists in organising . . . the producers, and by
   this subjecting capital and subordinating power. Such is the war of
   liberty against authority, a war of the producer against the
   non-producer; a war of equality against privilege . . . An agricultural
   and industrial combination must be found by means of which power, today
   the ruler of society, shall become its slave." [quoted by K. Steven
   Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
   Socialism, p. 148 and p. 157] Ultimately, "any revolution, to be
   effective, must be spontaneous and emanate, not from the heads of
   authorities, but from the bowels of the people . . . the only
   connection between government and labour is that labour, in organising
   itself, has the abrogation of governments as its mission." [Proudhon,
   No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 52]

   Similarly, Bakunin saw an anarchist revolution as coming "from below."
   As he put it, "liberty can be created only by liberty, by an
   insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the
   workers from below upward." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 179] Elsewhere he
   wrote that "popular revolution" would "create its own organisation from
   the bottom upwards and from the circumference inwards, in accordance
   with the principle of liberty, and not from the top downwards and from
   the centre outwards, as in the way of authority." [Michael Bakunin:
   Selected Writings, p. 170] His vision of revolution and revolutionary
   self-organisation and construction from below was a core aspect of his
   anarchist ideas and he argued repeatedly for "the free organisation of
   the people's lives in accordance with their needs - not from the top
   down, as we have it in the State, but from the bottom up, an
   organisation formed by the people themselves . . . a free union of
   associations of agricultural and factory workers, of communes, regions,
   and nations." He stressed that "the politics of the Social Revolution"
   was "the abolition of the State" and "the economic, altogether free
   organisation of the people, an organisation from below upward, by means
   of federation." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 297-8]

   While Proudhon wanted to revolutionise society, he rejected
   revolutionary means to do so (i.e. collective struggle, strikes,
   insurrection, etc.). Bakunin, however, was a revolutionary in this, the
   popular, sense of the word. Yet he shared with Proudhon the idea of
   socialism being created by the working class itself. As he put it, in
   "a social revolution, which in everything is diametrically opposed to a
   political revolution, the actions of individuals hardly count at all,
   whereas the spontaneous action of the masses is everything. All that
   individuals can do is clarify, propagate and work out the ideas
   corresponding to the popular instinct, and, what is more, to contribute
   their incessant efforts to revolutionary organisation of the natural
   power of the masses - but nothing else beyond that; the rest can and
   should be done by the people themselves . . . revolution can be waged
   and brought to its full development only through the spontaneous and
   continued mass action of groups and associations of the people." [Op.
   Cit., pp. 298-9]

   Therefore, the idea of "socialism from below" is a distinctly anarchist
   notion, one found in the works of Proudhon and Bakunin and repeated by
   anarchists ever since. As such, to hear Marxists appropriate this
   obviously anarchist terminology and imagery appears to many anarchists
   as opportunistic and attempt to cover the authoritarian reality of
   mainstream Marxism with anarchist rhetoric. Moreover, the attempt to
   suggest that anarchism is part of the elitist "socialism from above"
   school rests on little more that selective quoting of Proudhon and
   Bakunin (including from Bakunin's pre-anarchist days) to present a
   picture of their ideas distinctly at odds with reality. However, there
   are "libertarian" strains of Marxism which are close to anarchism. Does
   this mean that there are no elements of a "socialism from below" to be
   found in Marx and Engels?

   If we look at Marx, we get contradictory impressions. On the one hand,
   he argued that freedom "consists in converting the state from an organ
   superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it."
   Combine this with his comments on the Paris Commune (see his "The Civil
   War in France"), we can say that there are clearly elements of
   "socialism from below" in Marx's work. On the other hand, he often
   stresses the need for strict centralisation of power. In 1850, for
   example, he argued that the workers must "not only strive for a single
   and indivisible German republic, but also within this republic for the
   most determined centralisation of power in the hands of the state
   authority." This was because "the path of revolutionary activity" can
   "proceed only from the centre." This meant that the workers must be
   opposed to the "federative republic" planned by the democrats and "must
   not allow themselves to be misguided by the democratic talk of freedom
   for the communities, of self-government, etc." This centralisation of
   power was essential to overcome local autonomy, which would allow
   "every village, every town and every province" to put "a new obstacle
   in the path" the revolution due to "local and provincial obstinacy."
   Decades later, Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of "the free
   organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" as "nonsense."
   [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 537, p. 509 and p. 547]

   Thus we have a contradiction. While arguing that the state must become
   subordinate to society, we have a central power imposing its will on
   "local and provincial obstinacy." This implies a vision of revolution
   in which the centre (indeed, "the state authority") forces its will on
   the population, which (by necessity) means that the centre power is
   "superimposed upon society" rather than "subordinate" to it. Given his
   dismissal of the idea of organisation from bottom to top, we cannot
   argue that by this he meant simply the co-ordination of local
   initiatives. Rather, we are struck by the "top-down" picture of
   revolution Marx presents. Indeed, his argument from 1850 suggests that
   Marx favoured centralism not only in order to prevent the masses from
   creating obstacles to the revolutionary activity of the "centre," but
   also to prevent them from interfering with their own liberation.

   Looking at Engels, we discover him writing that "[a]s soon as our Party
   is in possession of political power it has simply to expropriate the
   big landed proprietors just like the manufacturers in industry . . .
   thus restored to the community [they] are to be turned over by us to
   the rural workers who are already cultivating them and are to be
   organised into co-operatives." He even states that this expropriation
   may "be compensated," depending on "the circumstances which we obtain
   power, and particularly by the attitude adopted by these gentry."
   [Selected Writings, pp. 638-9] Thus we have the party taking power,
   then expropriating the means of life for the workers and, lastly,
   "turning over" these to them. While this fits into the general scheme
   of the Communist Manifesto, it cannot be said to be "socialism from
   below" which can only signify the direct expropriation of the means of
   production by the workers themselves, organising themselves into free
   producer associations to do so.

   It may be argued that Marx and Engels did not exclude such a solution
   to the social question. For example, we find Engels stating that "the
   question is not whether the proletariat when it comes to power will
   simply seize by force the tools of production, the raw materials and
   means of subsistence" or "whether it will redeem property therein by
   instalments spread over a long period." To attempt to predict this "for
   all cases would be utopia-making." [Collected Works, vol. 23, p. 386]
   However, Engels is assuming that the social revolution (the proletariat
   "com[ing] to power") comes before the social revolution (the seizure of
   the means of production). In this, we can assume that it is the
   "revolutionary" government which does the seizing (or redeeming) rather
   than rebel workers.

   This vision of revolution as the party coming to power can be seen from
   Engels' warning that the "worse thing that can befall the leader of an
   extreme party is to be compelled to assume power at a time when the
   movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents
   and for the measures this domination implies." [Op. Cit., vol. 10, p.
   469] Needless to say, such a vision is hard to equate with "socialism
   from below" which implies the active participation of the working class
   in the direct management of society from the bottom-up. If the leaders
   "assume power" then they have the real power, not the class they claim
   to "represent." Equally, it seems strange that socialism can be equated
   with a vision which equates "domination" of a class being achieved by
   the fact a leader "represents" it. Can the working class really be said
   to be the ruling class if its role in society is to select those who
   exercise power on its behalf (i.e. to elect representatives)? Bakunin
   quite rightly answered in the negative. While representative democracy
   may be acceptable to ensure bourgeois rule, it cannot be assumed that
   it can be utilised to create a socialist society. It was designed to
   defend class society and its centralised and top-down nature reflects
   this role.

   Moreover, Marx and Engels had argued in The Holy Family that the
   "question is not what this or that proletarian, or even the whole of
   the proletariat at the moment considers as its aim. The question is
   what the proletariat is, and what, consequent on that being, it will be
   compelled to do." [quoted by Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists,
   p. 280] As Murray Bookchin argued:

     "These lines and others like them in Marx's writings were to provide
     the rationale for asserting the authority of Marxist parties and
     their armed detachments over and even against the proletariat.
     Claiming a deeper and more informed comprehension of the situation
     than 'even the whole of the proletariat at the given moment,'
     Marxist parties went on to dissolve such revolutionary forms of
     proletarian organisation as factory committees and ultimately to
     totally regiment the proletariat according to lines established by
     the party leadership." [Op. Cit., p. 289]

   Thus the ideological underpinning of a "socialism from above" is
   expounded, one which dismisses what the members of the working class
   actually want or desire at a given point (a position which Trotsky, for
   one, explicitly argued). A few years later, they argued in The
   Communist Manifesto that "a portion of the bourgeois goes over to the
   proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists,
   who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically
   the historical movement as a whole." They also noted that the
   Communists are "the most advanced and resolute section of the
   working-class parties" and "they have over the great mass of the
   proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march,
   the conditions, and the general results of the proletarian movement."
   This gives a privileged place to the party (particularly the "bourgeois
   ideologists" who join it), a privileged place which their followers had
   no problem abusing in favour of party power and hierarchical leadership
   from above. As we discuss in [21]section H.5, Lenin was just expressing
   orthodox Social-Democratic (i.e. Marxist) policy when he argued that
   socialist consciousness was created by bourgeois intellectuals and
   introduced into the working class from outside. Against this, we have
   to note that the Manifesto states that the proletarian movement was
   "the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in
   the interests of the immense majority" (although, as discussed in
   [22]section H.1.1, when they wrote this the proletariat was a minority
   in all countries bar Britain). [Selected Works, p. 44, p. 46 and p. 45]

   Looking at the tactics advocated by Marx and Engels, we see a strong
   support for "political action" in the sense of participating in
   elections. This support undoubtedly flows from Engels's comments that
   universal suffrage "in an England two-thirds of whose inhabitants are
   industrial proletarians means the exclusive political rule of the
   working class with all the revolutionary changes in social conditions
   which are inseparable from it." [Collected Works, vol. 10, p. 298]
   Marx, likewise, repeatedly argued along identical lines. For example,
   in 1855, he stated that "universal suffrage . . . implies the
   assumption of political power as means of satisfying [the workers']
   social means" and, in Britain, "revolution is the direct content of
   universal suffrage." [Op. Cit., vol. 11, pp. 335-6] Yet how could an
   entire class, the proletariat organised as a "movement" exercise its
   power under such a system? While the atomised voting to nominate
   representatives (who, in reality, held the real power in society) may
   be more than adequate to ensure bourgeois, i.e. minority, power, could
   it be used for working class, i.e. majority, power?

   This seems highly unlikely because such institutions are designed to
   place policy-making in the hands of representatives and were created
   explicitly to exclude mass participation in order to ensure bourgeois
   control (see [23]section B.2.5). They do not (indeed, cannot)
   constitute a "proletariat organised as a ruling class." If public
   policy, as distinguished from administrative activities, is not made by
   the people themselves, in federations of self-managed assemblies, then
   a movement of the vast majority does not, cannot, exist. For people to
   acquire real power over their lives and society, they must establish
   institutions organised and run, as Bakunin constantly stressed, from
   below. This would necessitate that they themselves directly manage
   their own affairs, communities and workplaces and, for co-ordination,
   mandate federal assemblies of revocable and strictly controllable
   delegates, who will execute their decisions. Only in this sense can a
   majority class, especially one committed to the abolition of all
   classes, organise as a class to manage society.

   As such, Marx and Engels tactics are at odds with any idea of
   "socialism from below." While, correctly, supporting strikes and other
   forms of working class direct action (although, significantly, Engels
   dismissed the general strike) they placed that support within a general
   political strategy which emphasised electioneering and representative
   forms. This, however, is a form of struggle which can only really be
   carried out by means of leaders. The role of the masses is minor, that
   of voters. The focus of the struggle is at the top, in parliament,
   where the duly elected leaders are. As Luigi Galleani argued, this form
   of action involved the "ceding of power by all to someone, the
   delegate, the representative, individual or group." This meant that
   rather than the anarchist tactic of "direct pressure put against the
   ruling classes by the masses," the Socialist Party "substituted
   representation and the rigid discipline of the parliamentary
   socialists," which inevitably resulted in it "adopt[ing] class
   collaboration in the legislative arena, without which all reforms would
   remain a vain hope." It also resulted in the socialists needing
   "authoritarian organisations", i.e. ones which are centralised and
   disciplined from above down. [The End of Anarchism?, p. 14, p. 12 and
   p. 14] The end result was the encouragement of a viewpoint that reforms
   (indeed, the revolution) would be the work of leaders acting on behalf
   of the masses whose role would be that of voters and followers, not
   active participants in the struggle (see [24]section J.2 for a
   discussion on direct action and why anarchists reject electioneering).

   By the 1890s, the top-down and essentially reformist nature of these
   tactics had made their mark in both Engels' politics and the practical
   activities of the Social-Democratic parties. Engels "introduction" to
   Marx's The Class Struggles in France indicated how far Marxism had
   progressed and undoubtedly influenced by the rise of Social-Democracy
   as an electoral power, it stressed the use of the ballot box as the
   ideal way, if not the only way, for the party to take power. He noted
   that "[w]e, the 'revolutionists', the 'overthrowers'" were "thriving
   far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and overthrow" and
   the bourgeoisie "cry despairingly . . . legality is the death of us"
   and were "much more afraid of the legal than of the illegal action of
   the workers' party, of the results of elections than of those of
   rebellion." He argued that it was essential "not to fitter away this
   daily increasing shock force [of party voters] in vanguard skirmishes,
   but to keep it intact until the decisive day." [Selected Writings, p.
   656, p. 650 and p. 655]

   The net effect of this would simply be keeping the class struggle
   within the bounds decided upon by the party leaders, so placing the
   emphasis on the activities and decisions of those at the top rather
   than the struggle and decisions of the mass of working class people
   themselves. As we noted in [25]section H.1.1, when the party was racked
   by the "revisionism" controversy after Engels death, it was
   fundamentally a conflict between those who wanted the party's rhetoric
   to reflect its reformist tactics and those who sought the illusion of
   radical words to cover the reformist practice. The decision of the
   Party leadership to support their state in the First World War simply
   proved that radical words cannot defeat reformist tactics.

   Needless to say, from this contradictory inheritance Marxists had two
   ways of proceeding. Either they become explicitly anti-state (and so
   approach anarchism) or become explicitly in favour of party and state
   power and so, by necessity, "revolution from above." The council
   communists and other libertarian Marxists followed the first path, the
   Bolsheviks and their followers the second. As we discuss in the
   [26]next section, Lenin explicitly dismissed the idea that Marxism
   proceeded "only from below," stating that this was an anarchist
   principle. Nor was he shy in equating party power with working class
   power. Indeed, this vision of socialism as involving party power was
   not alien to the mainstream social-democracy Leninism split from. The
   leading left-wing Menshevik Martov argued as follows:

     "In a class struggle which has entered the phase of civil war, there
     are bound to be times when the advance guard of the revolutionary
     class, representing the interests of the broad masses but ahead of
     them in political consciousness, is obliged to exercise state power
     by means of a dictatorship of the revolutionary minority. Only a
     short-sighted and doctrinaire viewpoint would reject this prospect
     as such. The real question at stake is whether this dictatorship,
     which is unavoidable at a certain stage of any revolution, is
     exercised in such a way as to consolidate itself and create a system
     of institutions enabling it to become a permanent feature, or
     whether, on the contrary, it is replaced as soon as possible by the
     organised initiative and autonomy of the revolutionary class or
     classes as a whole. The second of these methods is that of the
     revolutionary Marxists who, for this reason, style themselves Social
     Democrats; the first is that of the Communists." [The Mensheviks in
     the Russian Revolution, Abraham Ascher (ed.), p. 119]

   All this is to be expected, given the weakness of the Marxist theory of
   the state. As we discuss in [27]section H.3.7, Marxists have always had
   an a-historic perspective on the state, considering it as purely an
   instrument of class rule rather than what it is, an instrument of
   minority class rule. For anarchists, the "State is the minority
   government, from the top downward, of a vast quantity of men." This
   automatically means that a socialism, like Marx's, which aims for a
   socialist government and a workers' state automatically becomes,
   against the wishes of its best activists, "socialism from above." As
   Bakunin argued, Marxists are "worshippers of State power, and
   necessarily also prophets of political and social discipline and
   champions of order established from the top downwards, always in the
   name of universal suffrage and the sovereignty of the masses, for whom
   they save the honour and privilege of obeying leaders, elected
   masters." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 265 and pp. 237-8]

   For this reason anarchists from Bakunin onwards have argued for a
   bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the basis of revolution
   and the means of managing society after capitalism and the state have
   been abolished. If these organs of workers' self-management are
   co-opted into a state structure (as happened in Russia) then their
   power will be handed over to the real power in any state - the
   government and its bureaucracy. The state is the delegation of power -
   as such, it means that the idea of a "workers' state" expressing
   "workers' power" is a logical impossibility. If workers are running
   society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then power
   rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in the
   hands of all. The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be
   an organ of working class (i.e. majority) self-management due to its
   basic nature, structure and design.

   So, while there are elements of "socialism from below" in the works of
   Marx and Engels they are placed within a distinctly centralised and
   authoritarian context which undermines them. As John Clark summarises,
   "in the context of Marx's consistent advocacy of centralist programmes,
   and the part these programmes play in his theory of social development,
   the attempt to construct a libertarian Marxism by citing Marx's own
   proposals for social change would seem to present insuperable
   difficulties." [Op. Cit., p. 93]

H.3.3 Is Leninism "socialism from below"?

   As discussed in the [28]last section, Marx and Engels left their
   followers with an ambiguous legacy. On the one hand, there are elements
   of "socialism from below" in their politics (most explicitly in Marx's
   comments on the libertarian influenced Paris Commune). On the other,
   there are distinctly centralist and statist themes in their work.

   From this legacy, Leninism took the statist themes. This explains why
   anarchists think the idea of Leninism being "socialism from below" is
   incredible. Simply put, the actual comments and actions of Lenin and
   his followers show that they had no commitment to a "socialism from
   below." As we will indicate, Lenin disassociated himself repeatedly
   from the idea of politics "from below," considering it (quite rightly)
   an anarchist idea. In contrast, he stressed the importance of a
   politics which somehow combined action "from above" and "from below."
   For those Leninists who maintain that their tradition is "socialism
   from below" (indeed, the only "real" socialism "from below"), this is a
   major problem and, unsurprisingly, they generally fail to mention it.

   So what was Lenin's position on "from below"? In 1904, during the
   debate over the party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Lenin
   stated that the argument "[b]ureaucracy versus democracy is in fact
   centralism versus autonomism; it is the organisational principle of
   revolutionary Social-Democracy as opposed to the organisational
   principle of opportunist Social-Democracy. The latter strives to
   proceed from the bottom upward, and, therefore, wherever possible . . .
   upholds autonomism and 'democracy,' carried (by the overzealous) to the
   point of anarchism. The former strives to proceed from the top
   downward." [Collected Works, vol. 7, pp. 396-7] Thus it is the
   non-Bolshevik ("opportunist") wing of Marxism which bases itself on the
   "organisational principle" of "from the bottom upward," not the
   Bolshevik tradition (as we note in [29]section H.5.5, Lenin also
   rejected the "primitive democracy" of mass assemblies as the basis of
   the labour and revolutionary movements). Moreover, this vision of a
   party run from the top down was enshrined in the Bolshevik ideal of
   "democratic centralism". How you can have "socialism from below" when
   your "organisational principle" is "from the top downward" is not
   explained by Leninist exponents of "socialism from below."

   Lenin repeated this argument in his discussion on the right tactics to
   apply during the near revolution of 1905. He mocked the Mensheviks for
   only wanting "pressure from below" which was "pressure by the citizens
   on the revolutionary government." Instead, he argued for "pressure . .
   . from above as well as from below," where "pressure from above" was
   "pressure by the revolutionary government on the citizens." He notes
   that Engels "appreciated the importance of action from above" and that
   he saw the need for "the utilisation of the revolutionary governmental
   power." Lenin summarised his position (which he considered as being in
   line with that of orthodox Marxism) by stating: "Limitation, in
   principle, of revolutionary action to pressure from below and
   renunciation of pressure also from above is anarchism." [Op. Cit., vol.
   8, p. 474, p. 478, p. 480 and p. 481] This seems to have been a common
   Bolshevik position at the time, with Stalin stressing in the same year
   that "action only from 'below'" was "an anarchist principle, which
   does, indeed, fundamentally contradict Social-Democratic tactics."
   [Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 149]

   It is in this context of "above and below" in which we must place
   Lenin's comments in 1917 that socialism was "democracy from below,
   without a police, without a standing army, voluntary social duty by a
   militia formed from a universally armed people." [Op. Cit., vol. 24, p.
   170] Given that Lenin had rejected the idea of "only from below" as an
   anarchist principle (which it is), we need to bear in mind that this
   "democracy from below" was always placed in the context of a Bolshevik
   government. Lenin always stressed that the "Bolsheviks must assume
   power." The Bolsheviks "can and must take state power into their own
   hands." He raised the question of "will the Bolsheviks dare take over
   full state power alone?" and answered it: "I have already had occasion
   . . . to answer this question in the affirmative." Moreover, "a
   political party . . . would have no right to exist, would be unworthy
   of the name of party . . . if it refused to take power when opportunity
   offers." [Op. Cit., vol. 26, p. 19 and p. 90] Lenin's "democracy from
   below" always meant representative government, not popular power or
   self-management. The role of the working class was that of voters and
   so the Bolsheviks' first task was "to convince the majority of the
   people that its programme and tactics are correct." The second task
   "that confronted our Party was to capture political power." The third
   task was for "the Bolshevik Party" to "administer Russia," to be the
   "governing party." [Op. Cit., vol. 27, pp. 241-2] Thus Bolshevik power
   was equated with working class power.

   Towards the end of 1917, he stressed this vision of a Bolshevik run
   "democracy from below" by arguing that since "the 1905 revolution
   Russia has been governed by 130,000 landowners . . . Yet we are told
   that the 240,000 members of the Bolshevik party will not be able to
   govern Russia, govern her in the interests of the poor." He even
   equated rule by the party with rule by the class, noting that
   "proletarian revolutionary power" and Bolshevik power" are "now one the
   same thing." He admitted that the proletariat could not actually govern
   itself for "[w]e know that an unskilled labourer or a cook cannot
   immediately get on with the job of state administration . . . We demand
   that training in th[is] work . . . be conducted by the class-conscious
   workers and soldiers." The "class-conscious workers must lead, but for
   the work of administration they can enlist the vast mass of the working
   and oppressed people." Thus democratic sounding rhetoric, in reality,
   hide the fact that the party would govern (i.e., have power) and
   working people would simply administer the means by which its decisions
   would be implemented. Lenin also indicated that once in power, the
   Bolsheviks "shall be fully and unreservedly in favour of a strong state
   power and of centralism." [Op. Cit., vol. 26, p. 111, p. 179, p. 113,
   p. 114 and p. 116]

   Clearly, Lenin's position had not changed. The goal of the revolution
   was simply a Bolshevik government, which, if it were to be effective,
   had to have the real power in society. Thus, socialism would be
   implemented from above, by the "strong" and centralised government of
   the "class-conscious workers" who would "lead" and so the party would
   "govern" Russia, in the "interests" of the masses. Rather than govern
   themselves, they would be subject to "the power of the Bolsheviks".
   While, eventually, the "working" masses would take part in the
   administration of state decisions, their role would be the same as
   under capitalism as, we must note, there is a difference between making
   policy and carrying it out, between the "work of administration" and
   governing, a difference Lenin obscures. In fact, the name of this essay
   clearly shows who would be in control under Lenin: "Can the Bolsheviks
   retain State Power?"

   As one expert noted, the Bolsheviks made "a distinction between the
   execution of policy and the making of policy. The 'broad masses' were
   to be the executors of state decrees, not the formulators of
   legislation." However, by "claiming to draw 'all people' into [the
   state] administration, the Bolsheviks claimed also that they were
   providing a greater degree of democracy than the parliamentary state."
   [Frederick I. Kaplan, Bolshevik Ideology and the Ethics of Soviet
   Labor, p. 212] The difference is important. Ante Ciliga, once a
   political prisoner under Stalin, once noted how the secret police
   "liked to boast of the working class origin of its henchmen." He quoted
   a fellow prisoner, and ex-Tsarist convict, who retorted: "You are wrong
   if you believe that in the days of the Tsar the gaolers were recruited
   from among dukes and the executioners from among the princes!" [The
   Russian Enigma, pp. 255-6]

   All of which explains the famous leaflet addressed to the workers of
   Petrograd immediately after the October Revolution, informing them that
   "the revolution has won." The workers were called upon to "show . . .
   the greatest firmness and endurance, in order to facilitate the
   execution of all the aims of the new People's Government." They were
   asked to "cease immediately all economic and political strikes, to take
   up your work, and do it in perfect order . . . All to your places" as
   the "best way to support the new Government of Soviets in these days"
   was "by doing your job." [quoted by John Read, Ten Days that Shook the
   World, pp. 341-2] Which smacks far more of "socialism from above" than
   "socialism from below"!

   The implications of Lenin's position became clearer after the
   Bolsheviks had taken power. Now it was the concrete situation of a
   "revolutionary" government exercising power "from above" onto the very
   class it claimed to represent. As Lenin explained to his political
   police, the Cheka, in 1920:

     "Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies
     of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the
     resistance of these exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary
     coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable
     elements among the masses themselves." [Op. Cit., vol. 42, p. 170]

   It could be argued that this position was forced on Lenin by the
   problems facing the Bolsheviks in the Civil War, but such an argument
   is flawed. This is for two main reasons. Firstly, according to Lenin
   himself civil war was inevitable and so, unsurprisingly, Lenin
   considered his comments as universally applicable. Secondly, this
   position fits in well with the idea of pressure "from above" exercised
   by the "revolutionary" government against the masses (and nothing to do
   with any sort of "socialism from below"). Indeed, "wavering" and
   "unstable" elements is just another way of saying "pressure from
   below," the attempts by those subject to the "revolutionary" government
   to influence its policies. As we noted in [30]section H.1.2, it was in
   this period (1919 and 1920) that the Bolsheviks openly argued that the
   "dictatorship of the proletariat" was, in fact, the "dictatorship of
   the party" (see [31]section H.3.8 on how the Bolsheviks modified the
   Marxist theory of the state in line with this). Rather than the result
   of the problems facing Russia at the time, Lenin's comments simply
   reflect the unfolding of certain aspects of his ideology when his party
   held power (as we make clear in [32]section H.6" the ideology of the
   ruling party and the ideas held by the masses are also factors in
   history).

   To show that Lenin's comments were not caused by circumstantial
   factors, we can turn to his infamous work Left-Wing Communism. In this
   1920 tract, written for the Second Congress of the Communist
   International, Lenin lambasted those Marxists who argued for direct
   working class power against the idea of party rule (i.e. the various
   council communists around Europe). We have already noted in [33]section
   H.1.2 that Lenin had argued in that work that it was "ridiculously
   absurd, and stupid" to "a contrast, in general, between the
   dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders." [The
   Lenin Anthology, p. 568] Here we provide his description of the
   "top-down" nature of Bolshevik rule:

     "In Russia today, the connection between leaders, party, class and
     masses . . . are concretely as follows: the dictatorship is
     exercised by the proletariat organised in the Soviets and is guided
     by the Communist Party . . . The Party, which holds annual
     congresses . . ., is directed by a Central Committee of nineteen
     elected at the congress, while the current work in Moscow has to be
     carried on by [two] still smaller bodies . . . which are elected at
     the plenary sessions of the Central Committee, five members of the
     Central Committee to each bureau. This, it would appear, is a
     full-fledged 'oligarchy.' No important political or organisational
     question is decided by any state institution in our republic [sic!]
     without the guidance of the Party's Central Committee.

     "In its work, the Party relies directly on the trade unions, which .
     . .have a membership of over four million and are formally
     non-Party. Actually, all the directing bodies of the vast majority
     of the unions . . . are made up of Communists, and carry out of all
     the directives of the Party. Thus . . . we have a formally
     non-communist . . . very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of
     which the Party is closely linked up with the class and the masses,
     and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the class
     dictatorship of the class is exercised."
     [Op. Cit., pp. 571-2]

   This was "the general mechanism of the proletarian state power viewed
   'from above,' from the standpoint of the practical realisation of the
   dictatorship" and so "all this talk about 'from above' or 'from below,'
   about 'the dictatorship of leaders' or 'the dictatorship of the
   masses,'" is "ridiculous and childish nonsense." [Op. Cit., p. 573]
   Lenin, of course, did not bother to view "proletarian" state power
   "from below," from the viewpoint of the proletariat. If he had, perhaps
   he would have recounted the numerous strikes and protests broken by the
   Cheka under martial law, the gerrymandering and disbanding of soviets,
   the imposition of "one-man management" onto the workers in production,
   the turning of the unions into agents of the state/party and the
   elimination of working class freedom by party power? Which suggests
   that there are fundamental differences, at least for the masses,
   between "from above" and "from below."

   At the Comintern congress itself, Zinoviev announced that "the
   dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time the dictatorship of
   the Communist Party." [Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress
   1920, vol. 1, p. 152] Trotsky also universalised Lenin's argument when
   he pondered the important decisions of the revolution and who would
   make them in his reply to the delegate from the Spanish
   anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT:

     "Who decides this question [and others like it]? We have the Council
     of People's Commissars but it has to be subject to some supervision.
     Whose supervision? That of the working class as an amorphous,
     chaotic mass? No. The Central Committee of the party is convened to
     discuss . . . and to decide . . . Who will solve these questions in
     Spain? The Communist Party of Spain." [Op. Cit., p. 174]

   As is obvious, Trotsky was drawing general lessons from the Russian
   Revolution for the international revolutionary movement. Needless to
   say, he still argued that the "working class, represented and led by
   the Communist Party, [was] in power here" in spite of it being "an
   amorphous, chaotic mass" which did not make any decisions on important
   questions affecting the revolution!

   Incidentally, his and Lenin's comments of 1920 disprove Trotsky's later
   assertion that it was "[o]nly after the conquest of power, the end of
   the civil war, and the establishment of a stable regime" when "the
   Central Committee little by little begin to concentrate the leadership
   of Soviet activity in its hands. Then would come Stalin's turn."
   [Stalin, vol. 1, p. 328] While it was definitely the "conquest of
   power" by the Bolsheviks which lead to the marginalisation of the
   soviets, this event cannot be shunted to after the civil war as Trotsky
   would like (particularly as Trotsky admitted that in 1917 "[a]fter
   eight months of inertia and of democratic chaos, came the dictatorship
   of the Bolsheviks." [Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 242]). We must note Trotsky
   argued for the "objective necessity" of the "revolutionary dictatorship
   of a proletarian party" well into the 1930s (see [34]section H.1.2) .

   Clearly, the claim that Leninism (and its various off-shoots like
   Trotskyism) is "socialism from below" is hard to take seriously. As
   proven above, the Leninist tradition is explicitly against the idea of
   "only from below," with Lenin explicitly stating that it was an
   "anarchist stand" to be for "'action only from below', not 'from below
   and from above'" which was the position of Marxism. [Collected Works,
   vol. 9, p. 77] Once in power, Lenin and the Bolsheviks implemented this
   vision of "from below and from above," with the highly unsurprising
   result that "from above" quickly repressed "from below" (which was
   dismissed as "wavering" by the masses). This was to be expected, for a
   government to enforce its laws, it has to have power over its citizens
   and so socialism "from above" is a necessary side-effect of Leninist
   theory.

   Ironically, Lenin's argument in State and Revolution comes back to
   haunt him. In that work he had argued that the "dictatorship of the
   proletariat" meant "democracy for the people" which "imposes a series
   of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the
   capitalists." These must be crushed "in order to free humanity from
   wage-slavery; their resistance must be broken by force; it is clear
   that where there is suppression there is also violence, there is no
   freedom, no democracy." [Essential Works of Lenin, pp. 337-8] If the
   working class itself is being subject to "suppression" then, clearly,
   there is "no freedom, no democracy" for that class - and the people
   "will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is
   labelled 'the people's stick'." [Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 338]

   So when Leninists argue that they stand for the "principles of
   socialism from below" and state that this means the direct and
   democratic control of society by the working class then, clearly, they
   are being less than honest. Looking at the tradition they place
   themselves, the obvious conclusion which must be reached is that
   Leninism is not based on "socialism from below" in the sense of working
   class self-management of society (i.e. the only condition when the
   majority can "rule" and decisions truly flow from below upwards). At
   best, they subscribe to the distinctly bourgeois vision of "democracy"
   as being simply the majority designating (and trying to control) its
   rulers. At worse, they defend politics which have eliminated even this
   form of democracy in favour of party dictatorship and "one-man
   management" armed with "dictatorial" powers in industry (most members
   of such parties do not know how the Bolsheviks gerrymandered and
   disbanded soviets to maintain power, raised the dictatorship of the
   party to an ideological truism and wholeheartedly advocated "one-man
   management" rather than workers' self-management of production). As we
   discuss in [35]section H.5, this latter position flows easily from the
   underlying assumptions of vanguardism which Leninism is based on.

   So, Lenin, Trotsky and so on simply cannot be considered as exponents
   of "socialism from below." Any one who makes such a claim is either
   ignorant of the actual ideas and practice of Bolshevism or they seek to
   deceive. For anarchists, "socialism from below" can only be another
   name, like libertarian socialism, for anarchism (as Lenin, ironically
   enough, acknowledged). This does not mean that "socialism from below,"
   like "libertarian socialism," is identical to anarchism, it simply
   means that libertarian Marxists and other socialists are far closer to
   anarchism than mainstream Marxism.

H.3.4 Don't anarchists just quote Marxists selectively?

   No, far from it. While it is impossible to quote everything a person or
   an ideology says, it is possible to summarise those aspects of a theory
   which influenced the way it developed in practice. As such, any account
   is "selective" in some sense, the question is whether this results in a
   critique rooted in the ideology and its practice or whether it presents
   a picture at odds with both. As Maurice Brinton put it in the
   introduction to his classic account of workers' control in the Russian
   Revolution:

     "Other charges will also be made. The quotations from Lenin and
     Trotsky will not be denied but it will be stated that they are
     'selective' and that 'other things, too' were said. Again, we plead
     guilty. But we would stress that there are hagiographers enough in
     the trade whose 'objectivity' . . . is but a cloak for sophisticated
     apologetics . . . It therefore seems more relevant to quote those
     statements of the Bolshevik leaders of 1917 which helped determine
     Russia's evolution [towards Stalinism] rather those other statements
     which, like the May Day speeches of Labour leaders, were forever to
     remain in the realm of rhetoric." [The Bolsheviks and Workers'
     Control, p. xv]

   Hence the need to discuss all aspects of Marxism rather than take what
   its adherents like to claim for it as granted. In this, we agree with
   Marx himself who argued that we cannot judge people by what they say
   about themselves but rather what they do. Unfortunately while many
   self-proclaimed Marxists (like Trotsky) may quote these comments, fewer
   apply them to their own ideology or actions (again, like Trotsky).

   This can be seen from the almost ritualistic way many Marxists response
   to anarchist (or other) criticisms of their ideas. When they complain
   that anarchists "selectively" quote from the leading proponents of
   Marxism, they are usually at pains to point people to some document
   which they have selected as being more "representative" of their
   tradition. Leninists usually point to Lenin's State and Revolution, for
   example, for a vision of what Lenin "really" wanted. To this anarchists
   reply by, as we discussed in [36]section H.1.7, pointing out that much
   of that passes for 'Marxism' in State and Revolution is anarchist and,
   equally important, it was not applied in practice. This explains an
   apparent contradiction. Leninists point to the Russian Revolution as
   evidence for the democratic nature of their politics. Anarchists point
   to it as evidence of Leninism's authoritarian nature. Both can do this
   because there is a substantial difference between Bolshevism before it
   took power and afterwards. While the Leninists ask you to judge them by
   their manifesto, anarchists say judge them by their record!

   Simply put, Marxists quote selectively from their own tradition,
   ignoring those aspects of it which would be unappealing to potential
   recruits. While the leaders may know their tradition has skeletons in
   its closet, they try their best to ensure no one else gets to know.
   Which, of course, explains their hostility to anarchists doing so! That
   there is a deep divide between aspects of Marxist rhetoric and its
   practice and that even its rhetoric is not consistent we will now
   prove. By so doing, we can show that anarchists do not, in fact, quote
   Marxist's "selectively."

   As an example, we can point to the leading Bolshevik Grigorii Zinoviev.
   In 1920, as head of the Communist International he wrote a letter to
   the Industrial Workers of the World, a revolutionary labour union,
   which stated that the "Russian Soviet Republic . . . is the most highly
   centralised government that exists. It is also the most democratic
   government in history. For all the organs of government are in constant
   touch with the working masses, and constantly sensitive to their will."
   The same year he explained to the Second Congress of the Communist
   International that "[t]oday, people like Kautsky come along and say
   that in Russia you do not have the dictatorship of the working class
   but the dictatorship of the party. They think this is a reproach
   against us. Not in the least! We have a dictatorship of the working
   class and that is precisely why we also have a dictatorship of the
   Communist Party. The dictatorship of the Communist Party is only a
   function, an attribute, an expression of the dictatorship of the
   working class . . . [T]he dictatorship of the proletariat is at the
   same time the dictatorship of the Communist Party." [Proceedings and
   Documents of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 2, p. 928 and pp. 151-2]

   It seems redundant to note that the second quote is the accurate one,
   the one which matches the reality of Bolshevik Russia. Therefore it is
   hardly "selective" to quote the latter and not the former, as it
   expresses the reality of Bolshevism rather than its rhetoric.

   This duality and the divergence between practice and rhetoric comes to
   the fore when Trotskyists discuss Stalinism and try to counter pose the
   Leninist tradition to it. For example, we find the British SWP's Chris
   Harman arguing that the "whole experience of the workers' movement
   internationally teaches that only by regular elections, combined with
   the right of recall by shop-floor meetings can rank-and-file delegates
   be made really responsible to those who elect them." [Bureaucracy and
   Revolution in Eastern Europe, pp. 238-9] Significantly, Harman does not
   mention that both Lenin and Trotsky rejected this experience once in
   power. As we discuss in [37]section H.3.8, Leninism came not only to
   practice but to argue theoretically for state power explicitly to
   eliminate such control from below. How can the numerous statements of
   leading Leninists (including Lenin and Trotsky) on the necessity of
   party dictatorship be reconciled with it?

   The ironies do not stop there, of course. Harman correctly notes that
   under Stalinism, the "bureaucracy is characterised, like the private
   capitalist class in the West, by its control over the means of
   production." [Op. Cit., p. 147] However, he fails to note that it was
   Lenin, in early 1918, who had raised and then implemented such
   "control" in the form of "one-man management." As he put it:
   "Obedience, and unquestioning obedience at that, during work to the
   one-man decisions of Soviet directors, of the dictators elected or
   appointed by Soviet institutions, vested with dictatorial powers."
   [Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 316] To fail to note this link between
   Lenin and the Stalinist bureaucracy on this issue is quoting
   "selectively."

   The contradictions pile up. Harman argues that "people who seriously
   believe that workers at the height of revolution need a police guard to
   stop them handing their factories over to capitalists certainly have no
   real faith in the possibilities of a socialist future." [Op. Cit., p.
   144] Yet this does not stop him praising the regime of Lenin and
   Trotsky and contrasting it with Stalinism, in spite of the fact that
   this was precisely what the Bolsheviks did from 1918 onwards! Indeed
   this tyrannical practice played a role in provoking the strikes in
   Petrograd which preceded the Kronstadt revolt in 1921, when "the
   workers wanted the special squads of armed Bolsheviks, who carried out
   a purely police function, withdrawn from the factories." [Paul Avrich,
   Kronstadt 1921, p. 42] It seems equally strange that Harman denounces
   the Stalinist suppression of the Hungarian revolution for workers'
   democracy and genuine socialism while he defends the Bolshevik
   suppression of the Kronstadt revolt for the same goals. Similarly, when
   Harman argues that if by "political party" it is "meant a party of the
   usual sort, in which a few leaders give orders and the masses merely
   obey . . . then certainly such organisations added nothing to the
   Hungarian revolution." However, as we discuss in [38]section H.5, such
   a party was precisely what Leninism argued for and applied in practice.
   Simply put, the Bolsheviks were never a party "that stood for the
   councils taking power." [Op. Cit., p. 186 and p. 187] As Lenin
   repeatedly stressed, its aim was for the Bolshevik party to take power
   through the councils (see [39]section H.3.11). Once in power, the
   councils were quickly marginalised and became little more than a
   fig-leaf for party rule.

   This confusion between what was promised and what was done is a common
   feature of Leninism. Felix Morrow, for example, wrote what is usually
   considered the definitive Trotskyist work on the Spanish Revolution (in
   spite of it being, as we discuss in the appendix [40]"Marxists and
   Spanish Anarchism," deeply flawed). Morrow stated that the "essential
   points of a revolutionary program [are] all power to the working class,
   and democratic organs of the workers, peasants and combatants, as the
   expression of the workers' power." [Revolution and Counter-Revolution
   in Spain, p. 133] How this can be reconciled with, say, Trotsky's
   opinion of ten years previously that "[w]ith us the dictatorship of the
   party (quite falsely disputed theoretically by Stalin) is the
   expression of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat . . . The
   dictatorship of a party is a part of the socialist revolution"? [Leon
   Trotsky on China, p. 251] Or with Lenin's and Trotsky's repeated call
   for the party to seize and exercise power? Or their opinion that an
   organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise
   the proletarian dictatorship? How can the working class "have all
   power" if power is held not by mass organisations but rather by a
   vanguard party? Particularly, as we note in [41]section H.1.2 when
   party dictatorship is placed at the heart of Leninist ideology.

   Given all this, who is quoting who "selectively"? The Marxists who
   ignore what the Bolsheviks did when in power and repeatedly point to
   Lenin's The State and Revolution or the anarchists who link what they
   did with what they said outside of that holy text? Considering this
   absolutely contradictory inheritance, anarchists feel entitled to ask
   the question "Will the real Leninist please stand up?" What is it to
   be, popular democracy or party rule? If we look at Bolshevik practice,
   the answer is the latter anarchists argue. Ironically, the likes of
   Lenin and Trotsky concurred, incorporating the necessity of party power
   into their ideology as a key lesson of the Russian revolution. As such,
   anarchists do not feel they are quoting Leninism "selectively" when
   they argue that it is based on party power, not working class
   self-management. That Leninists often publicly deny this aspect of
   their own ideology or, at best, try to rationalise and justify it,
   suggests that when push comes to shove (as it does in every revolution)
   they will make the same decisions and act in the same way.

   In addition there is the question of what could be called the "social
   context." Marxists often accuse anarchists of failing to place the
   quotations and actions of, say, the Bolsheviks into the circumstances
   which generated them. By this they mean that Bolshevik authoritarianism
   can be explained purely in terms of the massive problems facing them
   (i.e. the rigours of the Civil War, the economic collapse and chaos in
   Russia and so on). As we discuss this question in [42]section H.6, we
   will simply summarise the anarchist reply by noting that this argument
   has three major problems with it. Firstly, there is the problem that
   Bolshevik authoritarianism started before the start of the Civil War
   and, moreover, intensified after its end. As such, the Civil War cannot
   be blamed. The second problem is simply that Lenin continually stressed
   that civil war and economic chaos was inevitable during a revolution.
   If Leninist politics cannot handle the inevitable then they are to be
   avoided. Equally, if Leninists blame what they should know is
   inevitable for the degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution it would
   suggest their understanding of what revolution entails is deeply
   flawed. The last problem is simply that the Bolsheviks did not care. As
   Samuel Farber notes, "there is no evidence indicating that Lenin or any
   of the mainstream Bolshevik leaders lamented the loss of workers'
   control or of democracy in the soviets, or at least referred to these
   losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared with the replacement of War
   Communism by NEP in 1921. In fact . . . the very opposite is the case."
   [Before Stalinism, p. 44] Hence the continuation (indeed,
   intensification) of Bolshevik authoritarianism after their victory in
   the civil war. Given this, it is significant that many of the quotes
   from Trotsky given above date from the late 1930s. To argue, therefore,
   that "social context" explains the politics and actions of the
   Bolsheviks seems incredulous.

   Lastly, it seems ironic that Marxists accuse anarchists of quoting
   "selectively." After all, as proven in [43]section H.2, this is exactly
   what Marxists do to anarchism!

   In summary, rather than quote "selectively" from the works and practice
   of Marxism, anarchists summarise those tendencies of both which, we
   argue, contribute to its continual failure in practice as a
   revolutionary theory. Moreover, Marxists themselves are equally as
   "selective" as anarchists in this respect. Firstly, as regards
   anarchist theory and practice and, secondly, as regards their own.

H.3.5 Has Marxist appropriation of anarchist ideas changed it?

   As is obvious in any account of the history of socialism, Marxists (of
   various schools) have appropriated key anarchist ideas and (often)
   present them as if Marxists thought of them first.

   For example, as we discuss in [44]section H.3.10, it was anarchists who
   first raised the idea of smashing the bourgeois state and replacing it
   with the fighting organisations of the working class (such as unions,
   workers' councils, etc.). It was only in 1917, decades after anarchists
   had first raised the idea, that Marxists started to argue these ideas
   but, of course, with a twist. While anarchists meant that working class
   organisations would be the basis of a free society, Lenin saw these
   organs as the best means of achieving Bolshevik party power.

   Similarly with the libertarian idea of the "militant minority." By
   this, anarchists and syndicalists meant groups of workers who gave an
   example by their direct action which their fellow workers could imitate
   (for example by leading wildcat strikes which would use flying pickets
   to get other workers to join in). This "militant minority"
   would be at the forefront of social struggle and would show, by
   example, practice and discussion, that their ideas and tactics were the
   correct ones. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Bolsheviks argued
   that this idea was similar to their idea of a vanguard party. This
   ignored two key differences. Firstly that the libertarian "militant
   minority" did not aim to take power on behalf of the working class but
   rather to encourage it, by example, to manage its own struggles and
   affairs (and, ultimately, society). Secondly, that "vanguard parties"
   are organised in hierarchical ways alien to the spirit of anarchism.
   While both the "militant minority" and "vanguard party" approaches are
   based on an appreciation of the uneven development of ideas within the
   working class, vanguardism transforms this into a justification for
   party rule over the working class by a so-called "advanced" minority
   (see [45]section H.5 for a full discussion). Other concepts, such as
   "workers' control," direct action, and so on have suffered a similar
   fate.

   A classic example of this appropriation of anarchist ideas into Marxism
   is provided by the general strike. In 1905, Russia had a near
   revolution in which the general strike played a key role.
   Unsurprisingly, as anarchists had been arguing for the general strike
   since the 1870s, we embraced these events as a striking confirmation of
   our long held ideas on revolutionary change. Marxists had a harder task
   as such ideas were alien to mainstream Social Democracy. Yet faced with
   the success and power of the general strike in practice, the more
   radical Marxists, like Rosa Luxemburg, had to incorporate it into their
   politics.

   Yet they faced a problem. The general strike was indelibly linked with
   such hearsays as anarchism and syndicalism. Had not Engels himself
   proclaimed the nonsense of the general strike in his diatribe "The
   Bakuninists at work"? Had his words not been repeated ad infinitum
   against anarchists (and radical socialists) who questioned the wisdom
   of social democratic tactics, its reformism and bureaucratic inertia?
   The Marxist radicals knew that Engels would again be invoked by the
   bureaucrats and reformists in the Social Democratic movement to throw
   cold water over any attempt to adjust Marxist politics to the economic
   power of the masses as expressed in mass strikes. The Social Democratic
   hierarchy would simply dismiss them as "anarchists." This meant that
   Luxemburg was faced with the problem of proving Engels was right, even
   when he was wrong.

   She did so in an ingenious way. Like Engels himself, she simply
   distorted what the anarchists thought about the general strike in order
   to make it acceptable to Social Democracy. Her argument was simple.
   Yes, Engels had been right to dismiss the "general strike" idea of the
   anarchists in the 1870s. But today, thirty years later, Social
   Democrats should support the general strike (or mass strike, as she
   called it) because the concepts were different. The anarchist "general
   strike" was utopian. The Marxist "mass strike" was practical.

   To discover why, we need to see what Engels had argued in the 1870s.
   Engels, mocked the anarchists (or "Bakuninists") for thinking that "a
   general strike is the lever employed by which the social revolution is
   started." He accusing them of imagining that "[o]ne fine morning, all
   the workers in all the industries of a country, or even of the whole
   world, stop work, thus forcing the propertied classes either humbly to
   submit within four weeks at most, or to attack the workers, who would
   then have the right to defend themselves and use the opportunity to
   pull down the entire old society." He stated that at the September 1
   1873 Geneva congress of the anarchist Alliance of Social Democracy, it
   was "universally admitted that to carry out the general strike
   strategy, there had to be a perfect organisation of the working class
   and a plentiful funds." He noted that that was "the rub" as no
   government would stand by and "allow the organisation or funds of the
   workers to reach such a level." Moreover, the revolution would happen
   long before "such an ideal organisation" was set up and if they had
   been "there would be no need to use the roundabout way of a general
   strike" to achieve it. [Collected Works, vol. 23, pp. 584-5]

   Rosa Luxemburg repeated Engels arguments in her essay "The Mass Strike,
   the Political Party and the Trade Unions" in order to show how her
   support for the general strike was in no way contrary to Marxism. [Rosa
   Luxemburg Speaks, pp. 153-218] Her "mass strike" was different from the
   anarchist "general strike" as mocked by Engels as it was dynamic
   process and could not be seen as one act, one isolated action which
   overthrows the bourgeoisie. Rather, the mass strike to the product of
   the everyday class struggle within society, leads to a direct
   confrontation with the capitalist state and so it was inseparable from
   the revolution.

   The only problem with all this is that the anarchists did not actually
   argue along the lines Engels and Luxemburg claimed. Most obviously, as
   we indicated in [46]section H.2.8, Bakunin saw the general strike as a
   dynamic process which would not be set for a specific date and did not
   need all workers to be organised before hand. As such, Bakunin's ideas
   are totally at odds with Engels assertions on what anarchist ideas on
   the general strike were about (they, in fact, reflect what actually
   happened in 1905).

   But what of the "Bakuninists"? Again, Engels account leaves a lot to be
   desired. Rather than the September 1873 Geneva congress being, as he
   claimed, of the (disbanded) Alliance of Social Democracy, it was in
   fact a meeting of the non-Marxist federations of the First
   International. Contra Engels, anarchists did not see the general strike
   as requiring all workers to be perfectly organised and then passively
   folding arms "one fine morning." The Belgian libertarians who proposed
   the idea at the congress saw it as a tactic which could mobilise
   workers for revolution, "a means of bringing a movement onto the street
   and leading the workers to the barricades." Moreover, leading anarchist
   James Guillaume explicitly rejected the idea that it had "to break out
   everywhere at an appointed day and hour" with a resounding "No!" In
   fact, he stressed that they did "not even need to bring up this
   question and suppose things could be like this. Such a supposition
   could lead to fatal mistakes. The revolution has to be contagious."
   [quoted by Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary
   Anarchism 1872-1886, p. 223 and p. 224]

   Another account of this meeting notes that how the general strike was
   to start was "left unsaid", with Guillaume "recognis[ing] that it as
   impossible for the anarchists simply to set the hour for the general
   strike." Another anarchist did "not believe that the strike was a
   sufficient means to win the social revolution" but could "set the stage
   for the success of an armed insurrection." Only one delegate,
   regardless of Engels' claims, thought it "demanded the utmost
   organisation of the working class" and if that were the case "then the
   general strike would not be necessary." This was the delegate from the
   reformist British trade unions and he was "attack[ing]" the general
   strike as "an absurd and impractical proposition." [Phil H. Goodstein,
   The Theory of the General Strike, pp. 43-5]

   Perhaps this is why Engels did not bother to quote a single anarchist
   when recounting their position on this matter? Needless to say,
   Leninists continue to parrot Engels assertions to this day. The facts
   are somewhat different. Clearly, the "anarchist" strategy of
   overthrowing the bourgeoisie with one big general strike set for a
   specific date exists only in Marxist heads, nowhere else. Once we
   remove the distortions promulgated by Engels and repeated by Luxemburg,
   we see that the 1905 revolution and "historical dialectics" did not, as
   Luxemburg claim, validate Engels and disprove anarchism. Quite the
   reverse as the general strikes in Russia followed the anarchist ideas
   of a what a general strike would be like quite closely. Little wonder,
   then, that Kropotkin argued that the 1905 general strike "demonstrated"
   that the Latin workers who had been advocating the general strike "as a
   weapon which would irresistible in the hands of labour for imposing its
   will" had been "right." [Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution,
   p. 288]

   So, contra Luxemburg, "the fatherland of Bakunin" was not "the
   burial-place of [anarchism's] teachings." [Op. Cit., p. 157] As
   Nicholas Walter argued, while the numbers of actual anarchists was
   small, "the 1905 Revolution was objectively an anarchist revolution.
   The military mutinies, peasant uprisings and workers' strikes
   (culminating in a general strike), led to the establishment of
   soldiers' and workers' councils . . . and peasants' communes, and the
   beginning of agrarian and industrial expropriation - all along the
   lines suggested by anarchist writers since Bakunin." [The Anarchist
   Past and Other Essays, p. 122] The real question must be when will
   Marxists realise that quoting Engels does not make it true?

   Moreover, without becoming an insurrection, as anarchists had stressed,
   the limits of the general strike were exposed in 1905. Unlike the some
   of the syndicalists in the 1890s and 1900s, this limitation was
   understood by the earliest anarchists. Consequently, they saw the
   general strike as the start of a revolution and not as the revolution
   itself. So, for all the Leninist accounts of the 1905 revolution
   claiming it for their ideology, the facts suggest that it was
   anarchism, not Marxism, which was vindicated by it. Luxemburg was
   wrong. The "land of Bakunin's birth" provided an unsurpassed example of
   how to make a revolution precisely because it applied (and confirmed)
   anarchist ideas on the general strike (and, it should be added,
   workers' councils). Marxists (who had previously quoted Engels to
   dismiss such things) found themselves repudiating aspect upon aspect of
   their dogma to remain relevant. Luxemburg, as Bookchin noted, "grossly
   misrepresented the anarchist emphasis on the general strike after the
   1905 revolution in Russia in order to make it acceptable to Social
   Democracy." (he added that Lenin "was to engage in the same
   misrepresentation on the issue of popular control in State and
   Revolution"). [Towards an Ecological Society, p. 227fn]

   As such, while Marxists have appropriated certain anarchist concepts,
   it does not automatically mean that they mean exactly the same thing by
   them. Rather, as history shows, radically different concepts can be
   hidden behind similar sounding rhetoric. As Murray Bookchin argued,
   many Marxist tendencies "attach basically alien ideas to the withering
   conceptual framework of Marxism - not to say anything new but to
   preserve something old with ideological formaldehyde - to the detriment
   of any intellectual growth that the distinctions are designed to
   foster. This is mystification at its worst, for it not only corrupts
   ideas but the very capacity of the mind to deal with them. If Marx's
   work can be rescued for our time, it will be by dealing with it as an
   invaluable part of the development of ideas, not as pastiche that is
   legitimated as a 'method' or continually 'updated' by concepts that
   come from an alien zone of ideas." [Op. Cit., p. 242f]

   This is not some academic point. The ramifications of Marxists
   appropriating such "alien ideas" (or, more correctly, the rhetoric
   associated with those ideas) has had negative impacts on actual
   revolutionary movements. For example, Lenin's definition of "workers'
   control" was radically different than that current in the factory
   committee movement during the Russian Revolution (which had more in
   common with anarchist and syndicalist use of the term). The
   similarities in rhetoric allowed the factory committee movement to put
   its weight behind the Bolsheviks. Once in power, Lenin's position was
   implemented while that of the factory committees was ignored.
   Ultimately, Lenin's position was a key factor in creating state
   capitalism rather than socialism in Russia (see [47]section H.3.14 for
   more details).

   This, of course, does not stop modern day Leninists appropriating the
   term workers' control "without bating an eyelid. Seeking to capitalise
   on the confusion now rampant in the movement, these people talk of
   'workers' control' as if a) they meant by those words what the
   politically unsophisticated mean (i.e. that working people should
   themselves decide about the fundamental matters relating to production)
   and b) as if they - and the Leninist doctrine to which they claim to
   adhere - had always supported demands of this kind, or as if Leninism
   had always seen in workers' control the universally valid foundation of
   a new social order, rather than just a slogan to be used for
   manipulatory purposes in specific and very limited historical
   contexts." [Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p.
   iv] This clash between the popular idea of workers' control and the
   Leninist one was a key reason for the failure of the Russian Revolution
   precisely because, once in power, the latter was imposed.

   Thus the fact that Leninists have appropriated libertarian (and working
   class) ideas and demands does not, in fact, mean that we aim for the
   same thing (as we discussed in [48]section H.3.1, this is far from the
   case). The use of anarchist/popular rhetoric and slogans means little
   and we need to look at the content of the ideas proposed. Given the
   legacy of the appropriation of libertarian terminology to popularise
   authoritarian parties and its subsequent jettison in favour of
   authoritarian policies once the party is in power, anarchists have
   strong grounds to take Leninist claims with a large pinch of salt!

   Equally with examples of actual revolutions. As Martin Buber noted,
   while "Lenin praises Marx for having 'not yet, in 1852, put the
   concrete question as to what should be set up in place of the State
   machinery after it had been abolished,'" Lenin argued that "it was only
   the Paris Commune that taught Marx this." However, as Buber correctly
   pointed out, the Paris Commune "was the realisation of the thoughts of
   people who had put this question very concretely indeed . . . the
   historical experience of the Commune became possible only because in
   the hearts of passionate revolutionaries there lived the picture of a
   decentralised, very much 'de-Stated' society, which picture they
   undertook to translate into reality. The spiritual fathers of the
   Commune had such that ideal aiming at decentralisation which Marx and
   Engels did not have, and the leaders of the Revolution of 1871 tried,
   albeit with inadequate powers, to begin the realisation of that idea in
   the midst of revolution." [Paths in Utopia, pp. 103-4] Thus, while the
   Paris Commune and other working class revolts are praised, their
   obvious anarchistic elements (which were usually often predicted by
   anarchist thinkers) are not mentioned. This results in some strange
   dichotomies. For example, Bakunin's vision of revolution is based on a
   federation of workers' councils, predating Marxist support for such
   bodies by decades, yet Marxists argue that Bakunin's ideas have nothing
   to teach us. Or, the Paris Commune being praised by Marxists as the
   first "dictatorship of the proletariat" when it implements federalism,
   delegates being subjected to mandates and recall and raises the vision
   of a socialism of associations while anarchism is labelled
   "petit-bourgeois"
   in spite of the fact that these ideas can be found in works of Proudhon
   and Bakunin which predate the 1871 revolt!

   From this, we can draw two facts. Firstly, anarchism has successfully
   predicted certain aspects of working class revolution. Anarchist K.J.
   Kenafick stated the obvious when he argues that any "comparison will
   show that the programme set out [by the Paris Commune] is . . . the
   system of Federalism, which Bakunin had been advocating for years, and
   which had first been enunciated by Proudhon. The Proudhonists . . .
   exercised considerable influence in the Commune. This 'political form'
   was therefore not 'at last' discovered; it had been discovered years
   ago; and now it was proven to be correct by the very fact that in the
   crisis the Paris workers adopted it almost automatically, under the
   pressure of circumstance, rather than as the result of theory, as being
   the form most suitable to express working class aspirations." [Michael
   Bakunin and Karl Marx, pp. 212-3] Rather than being somehow alien to
   the working class and its struggle for freedom, anarchism in fact bases
   itself on the class struggle. This means that it should come as no
   surprise when the ideas of anarchism are developed and applied by those
   in struggle, for those ideas are just generalisations derived from past
   working class struggles! If anarchism ideas are applied spontaneously
   by those in struggle, it is because those involved are themselves
   drawing similar conclusions from their own experiences.

   The other fact is that while mainstream Marxism often appropriated
   certain aspects of libertarian theory and practice, it does so
   selectively and places them into an authoritarian context which
   undermines their libertarian nature. Hence anarchist support for
   workers councils becomes transformed by Leninists into a means to
   ensure party power (i.e. state authority) rather than working class
   power or self-management (i.e. no authority). Similarly, anarchist
   support for leading by example becomes transformed into support for
   party rule (and often dictatorship). Ultimately, the practice of
   mainstream Marxism shows that libertarian ideas cannot be transplanted
   selectively into an authoritarian ideology and be expected to blossom.

   Significantly, those Marxists who do apply anarchist ideas honestly are
   usually labelled by their orthodox comrades as "anarchists." As an
   example of Marxists appropriating libertarian ideas honestly, we can
   point to the council communist and currents within Autonomist Marxism.
   The council communists broke with the Bolsheviks over the question of
   whether the party would exercise power or whether the workers' councils
   would. Needless to say, Lenin labelled them an "anarchist deviation."
   Currents within Autonomist Marxism have built upon the council
   communist tradition, stressing the importance of focusing analysis on
   working class struggle as the key dynamic in capitalist society.

   In this they go against the mainstream Marxist orthodoxy and embrace a
   libertarian perspective. As libertarian socialist Cornelius Castoriadis
   argued, "the economic theory expounded [by Marx] in Capital is based on
   the postulate that capitalism has managed completely and effectively to
   transform the worker - who appears there only as labour power - into a
   commodity; therefore the use value of labour power - the use the
   capitalist makes of it - is, as for any commodity, completely
   determined by the use, since its exchange value - wages - is determined
   solely by the laws of the market . . . This postulate is necessary for
   there to be a 'science of economics' along the physico-mathematical
   model Marx followed . . . But he contradicts the most essential fact of
   capitalism, namely, that the use value and exchange value of labour
   power are objectively indeterminate; they are determined rather by the
   struggle between labour and capital both in production and in society.
   Here is the ultimate root of the 'objective' contradictions of
   capitalism . . . The paradox is that Marx, the 'inventor' of class
   struggle, wrote a monumental work on phenomena determined by this
   struggle in which the struggle itself was entirely absent." [Political
   and Social Writings, vol. 2, pp. 202-3] Castoriadis explained the
   limitations of Marx's vision most famously in his "Modern Capitalism
   and Revolution." [Op. Cit., pp. 226-343]

   By rejecting this heritage which mainstream Marxism bases itself on and
   stressing the role of class struggle, Autonomist Marxism breaks
   decisively with the Marxist mainstream and embraces a position
   previously associated with anarchists and other libertarian socialists.
   The key role of class struggle in invalidating all deterministic
   economic "laws" was expressed by French syndicalists at the start of
   the twentieth century. This insight predated the work of Castoriadis
   and the development of Autonomist Marxism by over 50 years and is worth
   quoting at length:

     "the keystone of socialism . . . proclaimed that 'as a general rule,
     the average wage would be no more than what the worker strictly
     required for survival'. And it was said: 'That figure is governed by
     capitalist pressure alone and this can even push it below the
     minimum necessary for the working man's subsistence . . . The only
     rule with regard to wage levels is the plentiful or scarce supply of
     man-power . . .'

     "By way of evidence of the relentless operation of this law of
     wages, comparisons were made between the worker and a commodity: if
     there is a glut of potatoes on the market, they are cheap; if they
     are scarce, the price rises . . . It is the same with the working
     man, it was said: his wages fluctuate in accordance with the
     plentiful supply or dearth of labour!

     "No voice was raised against the relentless arguments of this absurd
     reasoning: so the law of wages may be taken as right . . . for as
     long as the working man [or woman] is content to be a commodity! For
     as long as, like a sack of potatoes, she remains passive and inert
     and endures the fluctuations of the market . . . For as long as he
     bends his back and puts up with all of the bosses' snubs, . . . the
     law of wages obtains.

     "But things take a different turn the moment that a glimmer of
     consciousness stirs this worker-potato into life. When, instead off
     dooming himself to inertia, spinelessness, resignation and
     passivity, the worker wakes up to his worth as a human being and the
     spirit of revolt washes over him: when he bestirs himself,
     energetic, wilful and active . . . [and] once the labour bloc comes
     to life and bestirs itself . . . then, the laughable equilibrium of
     the law of wages is undone."
     [Emile Pouget, Direct Action, pp. 9-10]

   And Marx, indeed, had compared the worker to a commodity, stating that
   labour power "is a commodity, neither more nor less than sugar. The
   former is measured by the clock, the latter by the scale." [Selected
   Works, p. 72] However, as Castoridias argued, unlike sugar the
   extraction of the use value of labour power "is not a technical
   operation; it is a process of bitter struggle in which half the time,
   so to speak, the capitalists turn out to be losers." [Op. Cit., p. 248]
   A fact which Pouget stressed in his critique of the mainstream
   socialist position:

     "A novel factor has appeared on the labour market: the will of the
     worker! And this factor, not pertinent when it comes to setting the
     price of a bushel of potatoes, has a bearing upon the setting of
     wages; its impact may be large or small, according to the degree of
     tension of the labour force which is a product of the accord of
     individual wills beating in unison - but, whether it be strong or
     weak, there is no denying it.

     "Thus, worker cohesion conjures up against capitalist might a might
     capable of standing up to it. The inequality between the two
     adversaries - which cannot be denied when the exploiter is
     confronted only by the working man on his own - is redressed in
     proportion with the degree of cohesion achieved by the labour bloc.
     From then on, proletarian resistance, be it latent or acute, is an
     everyday phenomenon: disputes between labour and capital quicken and
     become more acute. Labour does not always emerge victorious from
     these partial struggles: however, even when defeated, the struggle
     workers still reap some benefit: resistance from them has obstructed
     pressure from the employers and often forced the employer to grant
     some of the demands put."
     [Op. Cit., p. 10]

   The best currents of Autonomist Marxism share this anarchist stress on
   the power of working people to transform society and to impact on how
   capitalism operates. Unsurprisingly, most Autonomist Marxists reject
   the idea of the vanguard party and instead, like the council
   communists, stress the need for autonomist working class
   self-organisation and self-activity (hence the name!). They agree with
   Pouget when he argued that direct action "spells liberation for the
   masses of humanity", it "puts paid to the age of miracles - miracles
   from Heaven, miracles from the State - and, in contraposition to hopes
   vested in 'providence' (no matter what they may be) it announces that
   it will act upon the maxim: salvation lies within ourselves!" [Op.
   Cit., p. 3] As such, they draw upon anarchistic ideas and rhetoric (for
   many, undoubtedly unknowingly) and draw anarchistic conclusions. This
   can be seen from the works of the leading US Autonomist Marxist Harry
   Cleaver. His excellent essay "Kropotkin, Self-Valorisation and the
   Crisis of Marxism" is by far the best Marxist account of Kropotkin's
   ideas and shows the similarities between communist-anarchism and
   Autonomist Marxism. [Anarchist Studies, vol.2 , no. 2, pp. 119-36]
   Both, he points out, share a "common perception and sympathy for the
   power of workers to act autonomously" regardless of the "substantial
   differences" on other issues. [Reading Capital Politically, p. 15]

   As such, the links between the best Marxists and anarchism can be
   substantial. This means that some Marxists have taken on board many
   anarchist ideas and have forged a version of Marxism which is basically
   libertarian in nature. Unfortunately, such forms of Marxism have always
   been a minority current within it. Most cases have seen the
   appropriation of anarchist ideas by Marxists simply as part of an
   attempt to make mainstream, authoritarian Marxism more appealing and
   such borrowings have been quickly forgotten once power has been seized.

   Therefore appropriation of rhetoric and labels should not be confused
   with similarity of goals and ideas. The list of groupings which have
   used inappropriate labels to associate their ideas with other, more
   appealing, ones is lengthy. Content is what counts. If libertarian
   sounding ideas are being raised, the question becomes one of whether
   they are being used simply to gain influence or whether they signify a
   change of heart. As Bookchin argued:

     "Ultimately, a line will have to be drawn that, by definition,
     excludes any project that can tip decentralisation to the side of
     centralisation, direct democracy to the side of delegated power,
     libertarian institutions to the side of bureaucracy, and spontaneity
     to the side of authority. Such a line, like a physical barrier, must
     irrevocably separate a libertarian zone of theory and practice from
     the hybridised socialisms that tend to denature it. This zone must
     build its anti-authoritarian, utopian, and revolutionary commitments
     into the very recognition it has of itself, in short, into the very
     way it defines itself. . . . to admit of domination is to cross the
     line that separates the libertarian zone from the [state]
     socialist." [Op. Cit., pp. 223-4]

   Unless we know exactly what we aim for, how to get there and who our
   real allies are we will get a nasty surprise once our self-proclaimed
   "allies" take power. As such, any attempt to appropriate anarchist
   rhetoric into an authoritarian ideology will simply fail and become
   little more than a mask obscuring the real aims of the party in
   question. As history shows.

H.3.6 Is Marxism the only revolutionary politics which have worked?

   Some Marxists will dismiss our arguments, and anarchism, out of hand.
   This is because anarchism has not lead a "successful" revolution while
   Marxism has. The fact, they assert, that there has never been a serious
   anarchist revolutionary movement, let alone a successful anarchist
   revolution, in the whole of history proves that Marxism works. For some
   Marxists, practice determines validity. Whether something is true or
   not is not decided intellectually in wordy publications and debates,
   but in reality.

   For Anarchists, such arguments simply show the ideological nature of
   most forms of Marxism. The fact is, of course, that there has been many
   anarchistic revolutions which, while ultimately defeated, show the
   validity of anarchist theory (the ones in Spain and in the Ukraine
   being the most significant). Moreover, there have been serious
   revolutionary anarchist movements across the world, the majority of
   them crushed by state repression (usually fascist or communist based).
   However, this is not the most important issue, which is the fate of
   these "successful" Marxist movements and revolutions. The fact that
   there has never been a "Marxist" revolution which has not become a
   party dictatorship proves the need to critique Marxism.

   So, given that Marxists argue that Marxism is the revolutionary working
   class political theory, its actual track record has been appalling.
   After all, while many Marxist parties have taken part in revolutions
   and even seized power, the net effect of their "success" have been
   societies bearing little or no relationship to socialism. Rather, the
   net effect of these revolutions has been to discredit socialism by
   associating it with one-party states presiding over state capitalist
   economies.

   Equally, the role of Marxism in the labour movement has also been less
   than successful. Looking at the first Marxist movement, social
   democracy, it ended by becoming reformist, betraying socialist ideas by
   (almost always) supporting their own state during the First World War
   and going so far as crushing the German revolution and betraying the
   Italian factory occupations in 1920. Indeed, Trotsky stated that the
   Bolshevik party was "the only revolutionary" section of the Second
   International, which is a damning indictment of Marxism. [Stalin, vol.
   1, p. 248] Just as damning is the fact that neither Lenin or Trotsky
   noticed it before 1914! In fact, Lenin praised the "fundamentals of
   parliamentary tactics" of German and International Social Democracy,
   expressing the opinion that they were "at the same time implacable on
   questions of principle and always directed to the accomplishment of the
   final aim" in his obituary of August Bebel in 1913! [Collected Works,
   vol. 19, p. 298] For those that way inclined, some amusement can be
   gathered comparing Engels glowing predictions for these parties and
   their actual performance (in the case of Spain and Italy, his comments
   seem particularly ironic).

   As regards Bolshevism itself, the one "revolutionary" party in the
   world, it avoided the fate of its sister parties simply because there
   no question of applying social democratic tactics within bourgeois
   institutions as these did not exist in Tsarist Russia. Moreover, the
   net result of its seizure of power was, first, a party dictatorship and
   state capitalism under Lenin, then their intensification under Stalin
   and the creation of a host of Trotskyist sects who spend a considerable
   amount of time justifying and rationalising the ideology and actions of
   the Bolsheviks which helped create the Stalinism. Given the fate of
   Bolshevism in power, Bookchin simply stated the obviously:

     "None of the authoritarian technics of change has provided
     successful 'paradigms', unless we are prepared to ignore the harsh
     fact that the Russian, Chinese, and Cuban 'revolutions' were massive
     counterrevolutions that blight our entire century." [The Ecology of
     Freedom, p. 446]

   Clearly, a key myth of Marxism is the idea that it has been a
   successful movement. In reality, its failures have been consistent and
   devastating so suggesting it is time to re-evaluate the whole ideology
   and embrace a revolutionary theory like anarchism. Indeed, it would be
   no exaggeration to argue that every "success" of Marxism has, in fact,
   proved that the anarchist critique of Marxism was correct. Thus, as
   Bakunin predicted, the Social-Democratic parties became reformist and
   the "dictatorship of the proletariat" became the "dictatorship over the
   proletariat." With "victories" like these, Marxism does not need
   failures! Thus Murray Bookchin:

     "A theory which is so readily 'vulgarised,' 'betrayed,' or, more
     sinisterly, institutionalised into bureaucratic power by nearly all
     its adherents may well be one that lends itself to such
     'vulgarisations,' 'betrayals,' and bureaucratic forms as a normal
     condition of its existence. What may seem to be 'vulgarisations,
     'betrayals,' and bureaucratic manifestations of its tenets in the
     heated light of doctrinal disputes may prove to be the fulfilment of
     its tenets in the cold light of historical development." [Toward an
     Ecological Society, p. 196]

   Hence the overwhelming need to critically evaluate Marxist ideas and
   history (such as the Russian Revolution - see [49]section H.6). Unless
   we honestly discuss and evaluate all aspects of revolutionary ideas, we
   will never be able to build a positive and constructive revolutionary
   movement. By seeking the roots of Marxism's problems, we can enrich
   anarchism by avoiding possible pitfalls and recognising and building
   upon its strengths (e.g., where anarchists have identified, however
   incompletely, problems in Marxism which bear on revolutionary ideas,
   practice and transformation).

   If this is done, anarchists are sure that Marxist claims that Marxism
   is the revolutionary theory will be exposed for the baseless rhetoric
   they are.

H.3.7 What is wrong with the Marxist theory of the state?

   For anarchists, the idea that a state (any state) can be used for
   socialist ends is simply ridiculous. This is because of the nature of
   the state as an instrument of minority class rule. As such, it
   precludes the mass participation required for socialism and would
   create a new form of class society.

   As we discussed in [50]section B.2, the state is defined by certain
   characteristics (most importantly, the centralisation of power into the
   hands of a few). Thus, for anarchists, "the word 'State' . . . should
   be reserved for those societies with the hierarchical system and
   centralisation." [Peter Kropotkin, Ethics, p. 317f] This defining
   feature of the state has not come about by chance. As Kropotkin argued
   in his classic history of the state, "a social institution cannot lend
   itself to all the desired goals, since, as with every organ, [the
   state] developed according to the function it performed, in a definite
   direction and not in all possible directions." This means, by "seeing
   the State as it has been in history, and as it is in essence today" the
   conclusion anarchists "arrive at is for the abolition of the State."
   Thus the state has "developed in the history of human societies to
   prevent the direct association among men [and women] to shackle the
   development of local and individual initiative, to crush existing
   liberties, to prevent their new blossoming - all this in order to
   subject the masses to the will of minorities." [The State: Its Historic
   Role, p. 56]

   So if the state, as Kropotkin stressed, is defined by "the existence of
   a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration
   as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in
   the life of societies" then such a structure has not evolved by chance.
   Therefore "the pyramidal organisation which is the essence of the
   State" simply "cannot lend itself to a function opposed to the one for
   which it was developed in the course of history," such as the popular
   participation from below required by social revolution and socialism.
   [Op. Cit., p. 10, p. 59 and p. 56] Based on this evolutionary analysis
   of the state, Kropotkin, like all anarchists, drew the conclusion "that
   the State organisation, having been the force to which the minorities
   resorted for establishing and organising their power over the masses,
   cannot be the force which will serve to destroy these privileges."
   [Evolution and Environment, p. 82]

   This does not mean that anarchists dismiss differences between types of
   state, think the state has not changed over time or refuse to see that
   different states exist to defend different ruling minorities. Far from
   it. Anarchists argue that "[e]very economic phase has a political phase
   corresponding to it, and it would be impossible to touch private
   property unless a new mode of political life be found at the same
   time." "A society founded on serfdom," Kropotkin explained, "is in
   keeping with absolute monarchy; a society based on the wage system, and
   the exploitation of the masses by the capitalists finds it political
   expression in parliamentarianism." As such, the state form changes and
   evolves, but its basic function (defender of minority rule) and
   structure (delegated power into the hands of a few) remains. Which
   means that "a free society regaining possession of the common
   inheritance must seek, in free groups and free federations of groups, a
   new organisation, in harmony with the new economic phase of history."
   [The Conquest of Bread, p. 54]

   As with any social structure, the state has evolved to ensure that it
   carries out its function. In other words, the state is centralised
   because it is an instrument of minority domination and oppression.
   Insofar as a social system is based on decentralisation of power,
   popular self-management, mass participation and free federation from
   below upwards, it is not a state. If a social system is, however,
   marked by delegated power and centralisation it is a state and cannot
   be, therefore, a instrument of social liberation. Rather it will
   become, slowly but surely, "whatever title it adopts and whatever its
   origin and organisation may be" what the state has always been, a
   instrument for "oppressing and exploiting the masses, of defending the
   oppressors and the exploiters." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 23] Which, for
   obvious reasons, is why anarchists argue for the destruction of the
   state by a free federation of self-managed communes and workers'
   councils (see [51]section H.1.4 for further discussion).

   This explains why anarchists reject the Marxist definition and theory
   of the state. For Marxists, "the state is nothing but a machine for the
   oppression of one class by another." While it has been true that,
   historically, it is "the state of the most powerful, economically
   dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also
   the politically dominant class, and this acquires the means of holding
   down and exploiting the oppressed class," this need not always be the
   case. The state is "at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after
   its victorious struggle for class supremacy," although it "cannot avoid
   having to lop off at once as much as possible" of it "until such time
   as a generation reared in new, free social conditions is able to throw
   the entire lumber of the state on the scrap heap." This new state,
   often called the "dictatorship of the proletariat," would slowly
   "wither away" (or "dies out") as classes disappear and the state "at
   last . . . becomes the real representative of the whole of society" and
   so "renders itself unnecessary." Engels is at pains to differentiate
   this position from that of the anarchists, who demand "the abolition of
   the state out of hand." [Selected Works, p. 258, pp. 577-8, p. 528 and
   p. 424]

   For anarchists, this argument has deep flaws. Simply put, unlike the
   anarchist one, this is not an empirically based theory of the state.
   Rather, we find such a theory mixed up with a metaphysical,
   non-empirical, a-historic definition which is based not on what the
   state is but rather what it could be. Thus the argument that the state
   "is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another"
   is trying to draw out an abstract essence of the state rather than
   ground what the state is on empirical evidence and analysis. This
   perspective, anarchists argue, simply confuses two very different
   things, namely the state and popular social organisation, with
   potentially disastrous results. By calling the popular
   self-organisation required by a social revolution the same name as a
   hierarchical and centralised body constructed for, and evolved to
   ensure, minority rule, the door is wide open to confuse popular power
   with party power, to confuse rule by the representatives of the working
   class with working class self-management of the revolution and society.

   Indeed, at times, Marx seemed to suggest that any form of social
   organisation is a state. At one point he complained that the French
   mutualists argued that "[e]verything [was] to broken down into small
   'groupes' or 'communes', which in turn form an 'association', but not a
   state." [Collected Works, vol. 42, p. 287] Unsurprisingly, then, that
   Kropotkin noted "the German school which takes pleasure in confusing
   State with Society." This was a "confusion" made by those "who cannot
   visualise Society without a concentration of the State." Yet this "is
   to overlook the fact that Man lived in Societies for thousands of years
   before the State had been heard of" and that "communal life" had "been
   destroyed by the State." So "large numbers of people [have] lived in
   communes and free federations" and these were not states as the state
   "is only one of the forms assumed by society in the course of history.
   Why then make no distinction between what is permanent and what is
   accidental?" [The State: Its Historic Role, pp. 9-10]

   As we discussed in [52]section H.2.1, anarchist opposition to the idea
   of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" should not be confused with idea
   that anarchists do not think that a social revolution needs to be
   defended. Rather, our opposition to the concept rests on the confusion
   which inevitably occurs when you mix up scientific analysis with
   metaphysical concepts. By drawing out an a-historic definition of the
   state, Engels helped ensure that the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
   became the "dictatorship over the proletariat" by implying that
   centralisation and delegated power into the hands of the few can be
   considered as an expression of popular power.

   To explain why, we need only to study the works of Engels himself.
   Engels, in his famous account of the Origin of the Family, Private
   Property and the State, defined the state as follows:

     "The state is . . . by no means a power forced on society from
     without . . . Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage
     of development; it is an admission . . . that it has split into
     irreconcilable antagonisms . . . in order that these antagonisms and
     classes with conflicting economic interests might not consume
     themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to
     have power seemingly standing above society that would alleviate the
     conflict . . . this power, arisen out of society but placing itself
     above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the
     state." [Selected Writings, p. 576]

   The state has two distinguishing features, firstly (and least
   importantly) it "divides its subjects according to territory." The
   second "is the establishment of a public power which no longer directly
   coincides with the population organising itself as an armed force. This
   special public power is necessary because a self-acting armed
   organisation of the population has become impossible since the split
   into classes . . . This public power exists in every state; it consists
   not merely of armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons and
   institutions of coercion of all kinds." Thus "an essential feature of
   the state is a public power distinct from the mass of the people." [Op.
   Cit., pp. 576-7 and pp. 535-6]

   In this, the Marxist position concurs with the anarchist. Engels
   discussed the development of numerous ancient societies to prove his
   point. Talking of Greek society, he argued that it was based on a
   popular assembly which was "sovereign" plus a council. This social
   system was not a state because "when every adult male member of the
   tribe was a warrior, there was as yet no public authority separated
   from the people that could have been set up against it. Primitive
   democracy was still in full bloom, and this must remain the point of
   departure in judging power and the status of the council." Discussing
   the descent of this society into classes, he argued that this required
   "an institution that would perpetuate, not only the newly-rising class
   division of society, but the right of the possessing class to exploit
   the non-possessing class and the rule of the former over the latter."
   Unsurprisingly, "this institution arrived. The state was invented." The
   original communal organs of society were "superseded by real
   governmental authorities" and the defence of society ("the actual
   'people in arms'") was "taken by an armed 'public power' at the service
   of these authorities and, therefore, also available against the
   people." With the rise of the state, the communal council was
   "transformed into a senate." [Op. Cit., pp. 525-6, p. 528 and p. 525]

   Thus the state arises specifically to exclude popular self-government,
   replacing it with minority rule conducted via a centralised,
   hierarchical top-down structure ("government . . . is the natural
   protector of capitalism and other exploiters of popular labour."
   [Bakunin, Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 239]).

   This account of the rise of the state is at direct odds with Engels
   argument that the state is simply an instrument of class rule. For the
   "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be a state, it would have to
   constitute a power above society, be different from the people armed,
   and so be "a public power distinct from the mass of the people."
   However, Marx and Engels are at pains to stress that the "dictatorship
   of the proletariat" will not be such a regime. However, how can you
   have something (namely "a public power distinct from the mass of the
   people") you consider as "an essential feature" of a state missing in
   an institution you call the same name? It is a bit like calling a
   mammal a "new kind of reptile" in spite of the former not being
   cold-blooded, something you consider as "an essential feature" of the
   latter!

   This contradiction helps explains Engels comments that "[w]e would
   therefore propose to replace state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good
   old German word which can very well convey the meaning of the French
   word 'commune'" He even states that the Paris Commune "was no longer a
   state in the proper sense of the word." However, this comment does not
   mean that Engels sought to remove any possible confusion on the matter,
   for he still talked of "the state" as "only a transitional institution
   which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down's one's
   adversaries by force . . . so long as the proletariat still uses the
   state, it does not use it the interests of freedom but in order to hold
   down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of
   freedom the state as such ceases to exist." [Op. Cit., p. 335] Thus the
   state would still exist and, furthermore, is not identified with the
   working class as a whole ("a self-acting armed organisation of the
   population"), rather it is an institution standing apart from the
   "people armed" which is used, by the proletariat, to crush its enemies.

   (As an aside, we must stress that to state that it only becomes
   possible to "speak of freedom" after the state and classes cease to
   exist is a serious theoretical error. Firstly, it means to talk about
   "freedom" in the abstract, ignoring the reality of class and
   hierarchical society. To state the obvious, in class society working
   class people have their freedom restricted by the state, wage labour
   and other forms of social hierarchy. The aim of social revolution is
   the conquest of liberty by the working class by overthrowing
   hierarchical rule. Freedom for the working class, by definition, means
   stopping any attempts to restrict that freedom by its adversaries. To
   state the obvious, it is not a "restriction" of the freedom of would-be
   bosses to resist their attempts to impose their rule! As such, Engels
   failed to consider revolution from a working class perspective - see
   [53]section H.4.7 for another example of this flaw. Moreover his
   comments have been used to justify restrictions on working class
   freedom, power and political rights by Marxist parties once they have
   seized power. "Whatever power the State gains," correctly argued
   Bookchin, "it always does so at the expense of popular power.
   Conversely, whatever power the people gain, they always acquire at the
   expense of the State. To legitimate State power, in effect, is to
   delegitimate popular power." [Remaking Society, p. 160])

   Elsewhere, we have Engels arguing that "the characteristic attribute of
   the former state" is that while society "had created its own organs to
   look after its own special interests" in the course of time "these
   organs, at whose head was the state power, transformed themselves from
   the servants of society into the masters of society." [Op. Cit., p.
   257] Ignoring the obvious contradiction with his earlier claims that
   the state and communal organs were different, with the former
   destroying the latter, we are struck yet again by the idea of the state
   as being defined as an institution above society. Thus, if the post
   revolutionary society is marked by "the state" being dissolved into
   society, placed under its control, then it is not a state. To call it a
   "new and truly democratic" form of "state power" makes as little sense
   as calling a motorcar a "new" form of bicycle. As such, when Engels
   argues that the Paris Commune "was no longer a state in the proper
   sense of the word" or that when the proletariat seizes political power
   it "abolishes the state as state" we may be entitled to ask what it is,
   a state or not a state. [Op. Cit., p. 335 and p. 424] It cannot be
   both, it cannot be a "public power distinct from the mass of the
   people" and "a self-acting armed organisation of the population." If it
   is the latter, then it does not have what Engels considered as "an
   essential feature of the state" and cannot be considered one. If it is
   the former, then any claim that such a regime is the rule of the
   working class is automatically invalidated. That Engels mocked the
   anarchists for seeking a revolution "without a provisional government
   and in the total absence of any state or state-like institution, which
   are to be destroyed" we can safely say that it is the former. [Marx,
   Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 156]

   Given that "primitive democracy," as Engels noted, defended itself
   against its adversaries without such an institution shows that to
   equate the defence of working class freedom with the state is not only
   unnecessary, it simply leads to confusion. For this reason anarchists
   do not confuse the necessary task of defending and organising a social
   revolution with creating a state. Thus, the problem for Marxism is that
   the empirical definition of the state collides with the metaphysical,
   the actual state with its Marxist essence. As Italian Anarchist Camillo
   Berneri argued: "'The Proletariat' which seizes the state, bestowing on
   it the complete ownership of the means of production and destroying
   itself as proletariat and the state 'as the state' is a metaphysical
   fantasy, a political hypostasis of social abstractions." ["The
   Abolition and Extinction of the State," pp. 50-1, Cienfuegos Press
   Anarchist Review, no. 4, p. 50]

   This is no academic point, as we explain in the [54]next section this
   confusion has been exploited to justify party power over the
   proletariat. Thus, as Berneri argued, Marxists "do not propose the
   armed conquest of the commune by the whole proletariat, but they
   propose the conquest of the State by the party which imagines it
   represents the proletariat. The Anarchists allow the use of direct
   power by the proletariat, but they understand the organ of this power
   to be formed by the entire corpus of systems of communist
   administration - corporate organisations [i.e. industrial unions],
   communal institutions, both regional and national - freely constituted
   outside and in opposition to all political monopoly by parties and
   endeavouring to a minimum administrational centralisation." Thus "the
   Anarchists desire the destruction of the classes by means of a social
   revolution which eliminates, with the classes, the State."
   ["Dictatorship of the Proletariat and State Socialism", pp 51-2, Op.
   Cit., p. 52] Anarchists are opposed to the state because it is not
   neutral, it cannot be made to serve our interests. The structures of
   the state are only necessary when a minority seeks to rule over the
   majority. We argue that the working class can create our own
   structures, organised and run from below upwards, to ensure the
   efficient running of everyday life.

   By confusing two radically different things, Marxism ensures that
   popular power is consumed and destroyed by the state, by a new ruling
   elite. In the words of Murray Bookchin:

     "Marx, in his analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871, has done
     radical social theory a considerable disservice. The Commune's
     combination of delegated policy-making with the execution of policy
     by its own administrators, a feature of the Commune which Marx
     celebrated, is a major failing of that body. Rousseau quite rightly
     emphasised that popular power cannot be delegated without being
     destroyed. One either has a fully empowered popular assembly or
     power belongs to the State." ["Theses on Libertarian Municipalism",
     pp. 9-22, The Anarchist Papers, Dimitrios Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 14]

   If power belongs to the state, then the state is a public body distinct
   from the population and, therefore, not an instrument of working class
   power. Rather, as an institution designed to ensure minority rule, it
   would ensure its position within society and become either the ruling
   class itself or create a new class which instrument it would be. As we
   discuss in [55]section H.3.9 the state cannot be considered as a
   neutral instrument of economic class rule, it has specific interests in
   itself which can and does mean it can play an oppressive and
   exploitative role in society independently of an economically dominant
   class.

   Which brings us to the crux of the issue whether this "new" state will,
   in fact, be unlike any other state that has ever existed. Insofar as
   this "new" state is based on popular self-management and
   self-organisation, anarchists argue that such an organisation cannot be
   called a state as it is not based on delegated power. "As long as," as
   Bookchin stressed, "the institutions of power consisted of armed
   workers and peasants as distinguished from a professional bureaucracy,
   police force, army, and cabal of politicians and judges, they were
   no[t] a State . . . These institutions, in fact comprised a
   revolutionary people in arms . . . not a professional apparatus that
   could be regarded as a State in any meaningful sense of the term."
   ["Looking Back at Spain," pp. 53-96, The Radical Papers, Dimitrios I.
   Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 86] This was why Bakunin was at pains to
   emphasis that a "federal organisation, from below upward, of workers'
   associations, groups, communes, districts, and ultimately, regions and
   nations" could not be considered as the same as "centralised states"
   and were "contrary to their essence." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 13]

   So when Lenin argued in State and Revolution that in the "dictatorship
   of the proletariat" the "organ of suppression is now the majority of
   the population, and not the minority" and that "since the majority of
   the people itself suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force' for the
   suppression [of the bourgeoisie] is no longer necessary" he is
   confusing two fundamentally different things. As Engels made clear,
   such a social system of "primitive democracy" is not a state. However,
   when Lenin argued that "the more the functions of state power devolve
   upon the people generally, the less need is there for the existence of
   this power," he was implicitly arguing that there would be, in fact, a
   "public power distinct from mass of the people" and so a state in the
   normal sense of the word based on delegated power, "special forces"
   separate from the armed people and so on. [Essential Works of Lenin, p.
   301]

   That such a regime would not "wither away" has been proven by history.
   The state machine does not (indeed, cannot) represent the interests of
   the working classes due to its centralised, hierarchical and elitist
   nature - all it can do is represent the interests of the party in
   power, its own bureaucratic needs and privileges and slowly, but
   surely, remove itself from popular control. This, as anarchists have
   constantly stressed, is why the state is based on the delegation of
   power, on hierarchy and centralisation. The state is organised in this
   way to facilitate minority rule by excluding the mass of people from
   taking part in the decision making processes within society. If the
   masses actually did manage society directly, it would be impossible for
   a minority class to dominate it. Hence the need for a state. Which
   shows the central fallacy of the Marxist theory of the state, namely it
   argues that the rule of the proletariat will be conducted by a
   structure, the state, which is designed to exclude the popular
   participation such a concept demands!

   Considered another way, "political power" (the state) is simply the
   power of minorities to enforce their wills. This means that a social
   revolution which aims to create socialism cannot use it to further its
   aims. After all, if the state (i.e. "political power") has been created
   to further minority class rule (as Marxists and anarchists agree) then,
   surely, this function has determined how the organ which exercises it
   has developed. Therefore, we would expect organ and function to be
   related and impossible to separate. So when Marx argued that the
   conquest of political power had become the great duty of the working
   class because landlords and capitalists always make use of their
   political privileges to defend their economic monopolies and enslave
   labour, he drew the wrong conclusion.

   Building on a historically based (and so evolutionary) understanding of
   the state, anarchists concluded that it was necessary not to seize
   political power (which could only be exercised by a minority within any
   state) but rather to destroy it, to dissipate power into the hands of
   the working class, the majority. By ending the regime of the powerful
   by destroying their instrument of rule, the power which was
   concentrated into their hands automatically falls back into the hands
   of society. Thus, working class power can only be concrete once
   "political power" is shattered and replaced by the social power of the
   working class based on its own class organisations (such as factory
   committees, workers' councils, unions, neighbourhood assemblies and so
   on). As Murray Bookchin put it:

     "the slogan 'Power to the people' can only be put into practice when
     the power exercised by social elites is dissolved into the people.
     Each individual can then take control of his [or her] daily life. If
     'Power to the people' means nothing more than power to the 'leaders'
     of the people, then the people remain an undifferentiated,
     manipulated mass, as powerless after the revolution as they were
     before." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. xif]

   In practice, this means that any valid social revolution needs to break
   the state and not replace it with another one. This is because, in
   order to be a state, any state structure must be based on delegated
   power, hierarchy and centralisation ("every State, even the most
   Republican and the most democratic . . . . are in essence only machines
   governing the masses from above" and "[i]f there is a State, there must
   necessarily be domination, and therefore slavery; a State without
   slavery, overt or concealed, is unthinkable - and that is why we are
   enemies of the State." [Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin,
   p. 211 and p. 287]). If power is devolved to the working class then the
   state no longer exists as its "essential feature" (of delegated power)
   is absent. What you have is a new form of the "primitive democracy"
   which existed before the rise of the state. While this new, modern,
   form of self-management will have to defend itself against those
   seeking to recreate minority power, this does not mean that it becomes
   a state. After all, the tribes with "primitive democracy" had to defend
   themselves against their adversaries and so that, in itself, does not
   means that these communities had a state (see [56]section H.2.1). Thus
   defence of a revolution, as anarchists have constantly stressed, does
   not equate to a state as it fails to address the key issue, namely who
   has power in the system - the masses or their leaders.

   This issue is fudged by Marx. When Bakunin, in "Statism and Anarchy",
   asked the question "Will the entire proletariat head the government?",
   Marx argued in response:

     "Does in a trade union, for instance, the whole union constitute the
     executive committee? Will all division of labour in a factory
     disappear and also the various functions arising from it? And will
     everybody be at the top in Bakunin's construction built from the
     bottom upwards? There will in fact be no below then. Will all
     members of the commune also administer the common affairs of the
     region? In that case there will be no difference between commune and
     region. 'The Germans [says Bakunin] number nearly 40 million. Will,
     for example, all 40 million be members of the government?'
     Certainly, for the thing begins with the self-government of the
     commune." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and
     Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 150-1]

   As Alan Carter argues, "this might have seemed to Marx [over] a century
   ago to be satisfactory rejoinder, but it can hardly do today. In the
   infancy of the trade unions, which is all Marx knew, the possibility of
   the executives of a trade union becoming divorced from the ordinary
   members may not have seemed to him to be a likely outcome, We, however,
   have behind us a long history of union leaders 'selling out' and being
   out of touch with their members. Time has ably demonstrated that to
   reject Bakunin's fears on the basis of the practice of trade union
   officials constitutes a woeful complacency with regard to power and
   privilege - a complacency that was born ample fruit in the form of
   present Marxist parties and 'communist' societies . . . [His] dispute
   with Bakunin shows quite clearly that Marx did not stress the continued
   control of the revolution by the mass of the people as a prerequisite
   for the transcendence of all significant social antagonisms." [Marx: A
   Radical Critique, pp. 217-8] Non-anarchists have also noticed the
   poverty of Marx's response. For example, as David W. Lovell puts it,
   "[t]aken as a whole, Marx's comments have dodged the issue. Bakunin is
   clearly grappling with the problems of Marx's transition period, in
   particular the problem of leadership, while Marx refuses to discuss the
   political form of what must be (at least in part) class rule by the
   proletariat." [From Marx to Lenin, p. 64]

   As we discussed in [57]section H.3.1, Marx's "Address to the Communist
   League," with its stress on "the most determined centralisation of
   power in the hands of the state authority" and that "the path of
   revolutionary activity . . . can only proceed with full force from the
   centre," suggests that Bakunin's fears were valid and Marx's answer
   simply inadequate. [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 509] Simply put, if, as
   Engels argued, "an essential feature of the state is a public power
   distinct from the mass of the people," then, clearly Marx's argument of
   1850 (and others like it) signifies a state in the usual sense of the
   word, one which has to be "distinct" from the mass of the population in
   order to ensure that the masses are prevented from interfering with
   their own revolution. This was not, of course, the desire of Marx and
   Engels but this result flows from their theory of the state and its
   fundamental flaws. These flaws can be best seen from their repeated
   assertion that the capitalist democratic state could be captured via
   universal suffrage and used to introduce socialism (see [58]section
   H.3.10) but it equally applies to notions of creating new states based
   on the centralisation of power favoured by ruling elites since class
   society began.

   As Kropotkin stressed, "one does not make an historical institution
   follow in the direction to which one points - that is in the opposite
   direction to the one it has taken over the centuries." To expect this
   would be a "a sad and tragic mistake" simply because "the old machine,
   the old organisation, [was] slowly developed in the course of history
   to crush freedom, to crush the individual, to establish oppression on a
   legal basis, to create monopolists, to lead minds astray by accustoming
   them to servitude". [The State: Its Historic Role, pp. 57-8] A social
   revolution needs new, non-statist, forms of social organisation to
   succeed:

     "To give full scope to socialism entails rebuilding from top to
     bottom a society dominated by the narrow individualism of the
     shopkeeper. It is not as has sometimes been said by those indulging
     in metaphysical wooliness just a question of giving the worker 'the
     total product of his labour'; it is a question of completely
     reshaping all relationships . . . In ever street, in every hamlet,
     in every group of men gathered around a factory or along a section
     of the railway line, the creative, constructive and organisational
     spirit must be awakened in order to rebuild life - in the factory,
     in the village, in the store, in production and in distribution of
     supplies. All relations between individuals and great centres of
     population have to be made all over again, from the very day, from
     the very moment one alters the existing commercial or administrative
     organisation.

     "And they expect this immense task, requiring the free expression of
     popular genius, to be carried out within the framework of the State
     and the pyramidal organisation which is the essence of the State!
     They expect the State . . . to become the lever for the
     accomplishment of this immense transformation. They want to direct
     the renewal of a society by means of decrees and electoral
     majorities... How ridiculous!"
     [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., pp. 58-9]

   Ultimately, the question, of course, is one of power. Does the
   "executive committee" have the fundamental decision making power in
   society, or does that power lie in the mass assemblies upon which a
   federal socialist society is built? If the former, we have rule by a
   few party leaders and the inevitable bureaucratisation of the society
   and a state in the accepted sense of the word. If the latter, we have a
   basic structure of a free and equal society and a new organisation of
   popular self-management which eliminates the existence of a public
   power above society. This is not playing with words. It signifies the
   key issue of social transformation, an issue which Marxism tends to
   ignore or confuse matters about when discussing. Bookchin clarified
   what is at stake:

     "To some neo-Marxists who see centralisation and decentralisation
     merely as difference of degree, the word 'centralisation' may merely
     be an awkward way of denoting means for co-ordinating the decisions
     made by decentralised bodies. Marx, it is worth noting, greatly
     confused this distinction when he praised the Paris Commune as a
     'working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the
     same time.' In point of fact, the consolidation of 'executive and
     legislative' functions in a single body was regressive. It simply
     identified the process of policy-making, a function that rightly
     should belong to the people in assembly, with the technical
     execution of these policies, a function that should be left to
     strictly administrative bodies subject to rotation, recall,
     limitations of tenure . . . Accordingly, the melding of policy
     formation with administration placed the institutional emphasis of
     classical [Marxist] socialism on centralised bodies, indeed, by an
     ironical twist of historical events, bestowing the privilege of
     formulating policy on the 'higher bodies' of socialist hierarchies
     and their execution precisely on the more popular 'revolutionary
     committees' below." [Toward an Ecological Society, pp. 215-6]

   By confusing co-ordination with the state (i.e. with delegation of
   power), Marxism opens the door wide open to the "dictatorship of the
   proletariat" being a state "in the proper sense." In fact, not only
   does Marxism open that door, it even invites the state "in the proper
   sense" in! This can be seen from Engels comment that just as "each
   political party sets out to establish its rule in the state, so the
   German Social-Democratic Workers' Party is striving to establish its
   rule, the rule of the working class." [Collected Works, vol. 23, p.
   372] By confusing rule by the party "in the state" with "rule of the
   working class," Engels is confusing party power and popular power. For
   the party to "establish its rule," the state in the normal sense (i.e.
   a structure based on the delegation of power) has to be maintained. As
   such, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" signifies the delegation of
   power by the proletariat into the hands of the party and that implies a
   "public power distinct from the mass of the people" and so minority
   rule. This aspect of Marxism, as we argue in the [59]next section, was
   developed under the Bolsheviks and became "the dictatorship of the
   party" (i.e. the dictatorship over the proletariat):

     "since Marx vigorously opposed Bakunin's efforts to ensure that only
     libertarian and decentralist means were employed by revolutionaries
     so as to facilitate the revolution remaining in the hands of the
     mass of workers, he must accept a fair measure of culpability for
     the authoritarian outcome of the Russian Revolution . . .

     "Bakunin was not satisfied with trusting revolutionary leaders to
     liberate the oppressed . . . The oppressed people had to made aware
     that the only security against replacing one repressive structure
     with another was the deliberate retaining of control of the
     revolution by the whole of the working classes, and not naively
     trusting it to some vanguard."
     [Alan Carter, Marx: A Radical Critique pp. 218-9]

   It is for this reason why anarchists are extremely critical of Marxist
   ideas of social revolution. As Alan Carter argues:

     "It is to argue not against revolution, but against 'revolutionary'
     praxis employing central authority. It is to argue that any
     revolution must remain in the hands of the mass of people and that
     they must be aware of the dangers of allowing power to fall into the
     hands of a minority in the course of the revolution. Latent within
     Marxist theory . . . is the tacit condoning of political inequality
     in the course and aftermath of revolutionary praxis. Only when such
     inequality is openly and widely rejected can there be any hope of a
     libertarian communist revolution. The lesson to learn is that we
     must oppose not revolutionary practice, but authoritarian
     'revolutionary' practice. Such authoritarian practice will continue
     to prevail in revolutionary circles as long as the Marxist theory of
     the state and the corresponding theory of power remain above
     criticism within them." [Op. Cit., p. 231]

   In summary, the Marxist theory of the state is simply a-historic and
   postulates some kind of state "essence" which exists independently of
   actual states and their role in society. To confuse the organ required
   by a minority class to execute and maintain its rule and that required
   by a majority class to manage society is to make a theoretical error of
   great magnitude. It opens the door to the idea of party power and even
   party dictatorship. As such, the Marxism of Marx and Engels is confused
   on the issue of the state. Their comments fluctuate between the
   anarchist definition of the state (based, as it is, on generalisations
   from historical examples) and the a-historic definition (based not on
   historical example but rather derived from a supra-historical
   analysis). Trying to combine the metaphysical with the scientific, the
   authoritarian with the libertarian, could only leave their followers
   with a confused legacy and that is what we find.

   Since the death of the founding fathers of Marxism, their followers
   have diverged into two camps. The majority have embraced the
   metaphysical and authoritarian concept of the state and proclaimed
   their support for a "workers' state." This is represented by
   social-democracy and it radical offshoot, Leninism. As we discuss in
   the [60]next section, this school has used the Marxist conception of
   the state to allow for rule over the working class by the
   "revolutionary" party. The minority has become increasingly and
   explicitly anti-state, recognising that the Marxist legacy is
   contradictory and that for the proletarian to directly manage society
   then there can be no power above them. To this camp belongs the
   libertarian Marxists of the council communist, Situationist and other
   schools of thought which are close to anarchism.

H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state?

   As discussed in the [61]last section, there is a contradiction at the
   heart of the Marxist theory of the state. On the one hand, it
   acknowledges that the state, historically, has always been an
   instrument of minority rule and is structured to ensure this. On the
   other, it argues that you can have a state (the "dictatorship of the
   proletariat") which transcends this historical reality to express an
   abstract essence of the state as an "instrument of class rule." This
   means that Marxism usually confuses two very different concepts, namely
   the state (a structure based on centralisation and delegated power) and
   the popular self-management and self-organisation required to create
   and defend a socialist society.

   This confusion between two fundamentally different concepts proved to
   be disastrous when the Russian Revolution broke out. Confusing party
   power with working class power, the Bolsheviks aimed to create a
   "workers' state" in which their party would be in power (see
   [62]section H.3.3). As the state was an instrument of class rule, it
   did not matter if the new "workers' state" was centralised,
   hierarchical and top-down like the old state as the structure of the
   state was considered irrelevant in evaluating its role in society.
   Thus, while Lenin seemed to promise a radical democracy in which the
   working class would directly manage its own affairs in his State and
   Revolution, in practice he implemented a "dictatorship of the
   proletariat" which was, in fact, "the organisation of the vanguard of
   the oppressed as the ruling class." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 337]
   In other words, the vanguard party in the position of head of the
   state, governing on behalf of the working class which, in turn, meant
   that the new "workers' state" was fundamentally a state in the usual
   sense of the word. This quickly lead to a dictatorship over, not of,
   the proletariat (as Bakunin had predicted). This development did not
   come as a surprise to anarchists, who had long argued that a state is
   an instrument of minority rule and cannot change its nature. To use the
   state to affect socialist change is impossible, simply because it is
   not designed for such a task. As we argued in [63]section B.2, the
   state is based on centralisation of power explicitly to ensure minority
   rule and for this reason has to be abolished during a social
   revolution.

   As Voline summarised, there is "an explicit, irreconcilable
   contradiction between the very essence of State Socialist power (if it
   triumphs) and that of the true Social Revolutionary process." This was
   because "the basis of State Socialism and delegated power is the
   explicit non-recognition of [the] principles of the Social Revolution.
   The characteristic traits of Socialist ideology and practice . . . do
   not belong to the future, but are wholly a part of the bourgeois past .
   . . Once this model has been applied, the true principles of the
   Revolution are fatally abandoned. Then follows, inevitably, the
   rebirth, under another name, of the exploitation of the labouring
   masses, with all its consequences." Thus "the forward march of the
   revolutionary masses towards real emancipation, towards the creation of
   new forms of social life, is incompatible with the very principle of
   State power . . . the authoritarian principle and the revolutionary
   principle are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive." [The
   Unknown Revolution, p. 247 and p. 248]

   Ironically, the theoretical lessons Leninists gained from the
   experience of the Russian Revolution confirm the anarchist analysis
   that the state structure exists to facilitate minority rule and
   marginalise and disempower the majority to achieve that rule. This can
   be seen from the significant revision of the Marxist position which
   occurred once the Bolshevik party become the ruling party. Simply put,
   after 1917 leading representatives of Leninism stressed that state
   power was not required to repress resistance by the ex-ruling class as
   such, but, in fact, was also necessitated by the divisions within the
   working class. In other words, state power was required because the
   working class was not able to govern itself and so required a grouping
   (the party) above it to ensure the success of the revolution and
   overcome any "wavering" within the masses themselves.

   While we have discussed this position in [64]section H.1.2 and so will
   be repeating ourselves to some degree, it is worth summarising again
   the arguments put forward to justify this revision. This is because
   they confirm what anarchists have always argued, namely that the state
   is an instrument of minority rule and not one by which working class
   people can manage their own affairs directly. As the quotations from
   leading Leninists make clear, it is precisely this feature of the state
   which recommends it for party (i.e. minority) power. The contradiction
   at the heart of the Marxist theory of the state we pointed out in the
   [65]section H.3.7 has been resolved in Leninism. It supports the state
   precisely because it is "a public power distinct from the mass of the
   people," rather than an instrument of working class self-management of
   society.

   Needless to say, his latter day followers point to Lenin's apparently
   democratic, even libertarian, sounding 1917 work, The State and
   Revolution when asked about the Leninist theory of the state. As our
   discussion in [66]section H.1.7 proved, the ideas expounded in his
   pamphlet were rarely, if at all, applied in practice by the Bolsheviks.
   Moreover, it was written before the seizure of power. In order to see
   the validity of his argument we must compare it to his and his fellow
   Bolshevik leaders opinions once the revolution had "succeeded." What
   lessons did they generalise from their experiences and how did these
   lessons relate to State and Revolution?

   The change can be seen from Trotsky, who argued quite explicitly that
   "the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard" and that
   "the necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural
   level of the masses and their heterogeneity." Only with "support of the
   vanguard by the class" can there be the "conquest of power" and it was
   in "this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work
   of the whole class, but only under the leadership of the vanguard."
   Thus, rather than the working class as a whole seizing power, it is the
   "vanguard" which takes power - "a revolutionary party, even after
   seizing power . . . is still by no means the sovereign ruler of
   society." Thus state power is required to govern the masses, who cannot
   exercise power themselves. As Trotsky put it, "[t]hose who propose the
   abstraction of Soviets to the party dictatorship should understand that
   only thanks to the Bolshevik leadership were the Soviets able to lift
   themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the
   proletariat." [Writings 1936-37, p. 490, p. 488 and p. 495]

   Logically, though, this places the party in a privileged position. So
   what happens if the working class no longer supports the vanguard? Who
   takes priority? Unsurprisingly, in both theory and practice, the party
   is expected to rule over the masses. This idea that state power was
   required due to the limitations within the working class is reiterated
   a few years later in 1939. Moreover, the whole rationale for party
   dictatorship came from the fundamental rationale for democracy, namely
   that any government should reflect the changing opinions of the masses:

     "The very same masses are at different times inspired by different
     moods and objectives. It is just for this reason that a centralised
     organisation of the vanguard is indispensable. Only a party,
     wielding the authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the
     vacillation of the masses themselves . . . if the dictatorship of
     the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that the
     vanguard of the proletariat is armed with the resources of the state
     in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the
     backward layers of the proletariat itself." ["The Moralists and
     Sycophants against Marxism", pp. 53-66, Their Morals and Ours, p.
     59]

   Needless to say, by definition everyone is "backward" when compared to
   the "vanguard of the proletariat." Moreover, as it is this "vanguard"
   which is "armed with the resources of the state" and not the
   proletariat as a whole we are left with one obvious conclusion, namely
   party dictatorship rather than working class democracy. How Trotsky's
   position is compatible with the idea of the working class as the
   "ruling class" is not explained. However, it fits in well with the
   anarchist analysis of the state as an instrument designed to ensure
   minority rule.

   Thus the possibility of party dictatorship exists if popular support
   fades. Which is, significantly, precisely what had happened when Lenin
   and Trotsky were in power. In fact, these arguments built upon other,
   equally elitist statement which had been expressed by Trotsky when he
   held the reins of power. In 1920, for example, he argued that while the
   Bolsheviks have "more than once been accused of having substituted for
   the dictatorship of the Soviets the dictatorship of the party," in fact
   "it can be said with complete justice that the dictatorship of the
   Soviets became possible only by means of the dictatorship of the
   party." This, just to state the obvious, was his argument seventeen
   years later. "In this 'substitution' of the power of the party for the
   power of the working class," Trotsky added, "there is nothing
   accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The
   Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class."
   [Terrorism and Communism, p. 109] In early 1921, he argued again for
   Party dictatorship at the Tenth Party Congress:

     "The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making
     a fetish of democratic principles! They place the workers' right to
     elect representatives above the Party, as if the party were not
     entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship
     temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers'
     democracy. It is necessary to create amongst us the awareness of the
     revolutionary birthright of the party, which is obliged to maintain
     its dictatorship, regardless of temporary wavering even in the
     working classes. This awareness is for us the indispensable element.
     The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the
     formal principle of a workers' democracy." [quoted by Samuel Farber,
     Before Stalinism, p. 209]

   The similarities with his arguments of 1939 are obvious.
   Unsurprisingly, he maintained this position in the intervening years.
   He stated in 1922 that "we maintain the dictatorship of our party!"
   [The First Five Years of the Communist International, vol. 2, p. 255]
   The next year saw him arguing that "[i]f there is one question which
   basically not only does not require revision but does not so much as
   admit the thought of revision, it is the question of the dictatorship
   of the Party." He stressed that "[o]ur party is the ruling party" and
   that "[t]o allow any changes whatever in this field" meant "bring[ing]
   into question all the achievements of the revolution and its future."
   He indicated the fate of those who did question the party's position:
   "Whoever makes an attempt on the party's leading role will, I hope, be
   unanimously dumped by all of us on the other side of the barricade."
   [Leon Trotsky Speaks, p. 158 and p. 160]

   By 1927, when Trotsky was in the process of being "dumped" on the
   "other side of the barricade" by the ruling bureaucracy, he still
   argued for "the Leninist principle, inviolable for every Bolshevik,
   that the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be realised only
   through the dictatorship of the party." It was stressed that the
   "dictatorship of the proletariat [sic!] demands as its very core a
   single proletarian party." [The Challenge of the Left Opposition
   (1926-7), p. 395 and p. 441] As we noted in [67]section H.1.2, ten
   years later, he was still explicitly arguing for the "revolutionary
   dictatorship of a proletarian party".

   Thus, for Trotsky over a twenty year period, the "dictatorship of the
   proletariat" was fundamentally a "dictatorship of the party." While the
   working class may be allowed some level of democracy, the rule of the
   party was repeatedly given precedence. While the party may be placed
   into power by a mass revolution, once there the party would maintain
   its position of power and dismiss attempts by the working class to
   replace it as "wavering" or "vacillation" due to the "insufficient
   cultural level of the masses and their heterogeneity." In other words,
   the party dictatorship was required to protect working class people
   from themselves, their tendency to change their minds based on changing
   circumstances, evaluating the results of past decisions, debates
   between different political ideas and positions, make their own
   decisions, reject what is in their best interests (as determined by the
   party), and so on. Thus the underlying rationale for democracy (namely
   that it reflects the changing will of the voters, their "passing moods"
   so to speak) is used to justify party dictatorship!

   The importance of party power over the working class was not limited to
   Trotsky. It was considered of general validity by all leading
   Bolsheviks and, moreover, quickly became mainstream Bolshevik ideology.
   In March 1923, for example, the Central Committee of the Communist
   Party in a statement issued to mark the 25th anniversary of the
   founding of the Bolshevik Party. This statement summarised the lessons
   gained from the Russian revolution. It stated that "the party of the
   Bolsheviks proved able to stand out fearlessly against the vacillations
   within its own class, vacillations which, with the slightest weakness
   in the vanguard, could turn into an unprecedented defeat for the
   proletariat." Vacillations, of course, are expressed by workers'
   democracy. Little wonder the statement rejects it: "The dictatorship of
   the working class finds its expression in the dictatorship of the
   party." ["To the Workers of the USSR" in G. Zinoviev, History of the
   Bolshevik Party, p. 213 and p. 214]

   Trotsky and other leading Bolsheviks were simply following Lenin's
   lead, who had admitted at the end of 1920 that while "the dictatorship
   of the proletariat" was "inevitable" in the "transition of socialism,"
   it is "not exercised by an organisation which takes in all industrial
   workers." The reason "is given in the theses of the Second Congress of
   the Communist International on the role of political parties" (more on
   which later). This means that "the Party, shall we say, absorbs the
   vanguard of the proletariat, and this vanguard exercises the
   dictatorship of the proletariat." This was required because "in all
   capitalist countries . . . the proletariat is still so divided, so
   degraded, and so corrupted in parts" that it "can be exercised only by
   a vanguard . . . the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be
   exercised by a mass proletarian organisation." [Collected Works, vol.
   32, p. 20 and p. 21] For Lenin, "revolutionary coercion is bound to be
   employed towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses
   themselves." [Op. Cit., vol. 42, p. 170] Needless to say, Lenin failed
   to mention this aspect of his system in The State and Revolution (a
   failure usually repeated by his followers). It is, however, a striking
   confirmation of Bakunin's comments "the State cannot be sure of its own
   self-preservation without an armed force to defend it against its own
   internal enemies, against the discontent of its own people." [Michael
   Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 265]

   Looking at the lessons leading leaders of Leninism gained from the
   experience of the Russian Revolution, we have to admit that the
   Leninist "workers' state" will not be, in fact, a "new" kind of state,
   a "semi-state," or, to quote Lenin, a "new state" which "is no longer a
   state in the proper sense of the word." If, as Lenin argued in early
   1917, the state "in the proper sense of the term is domination over the
   people by contingents of armed men divorced from the people," then
   Bolshevism in power quickly saw the need for a state "in the proper
   sense." [Op. Cit., vol. 24, p. 85] While this state "in the proper
   sense" had existed from the start of Bolshevik rule, it was only from
   early 1919 onwards (at the latest) that the leaders of Bolshevism had
   openly brought what they said into line with what they did. It was only
   by being a "state in the proper sense" could the Bolshevik party rule
   and exercise "the dictatorship of the party" over the "wavering"
   working class.

   So when Lenin stated that "Marxism differs from anarchism in that it
   recognises the need for a state for the purpose of the transition to
   socialism," anarchists agree. [Op. Cit., vol. 24, p. 85] Insofar as
   "Marxism" aims for, to quote Lenin, the party to "take state power into
   [its] own hands," to become "the governing party" and considers one of
   its key tasks for "our Party to capture political power" and to
   "administer" a country, then we can safely say that the state needed is
   a state "in the proper sense," based on the centralisation and
   delegation of power into the hands of a few (see our discussion of
   Leninism as "socialism from above" in [68]section H.3.3 for details).

   This recreation of the state "in the proper sense" did not come about
   by chance or simply because of the "will to power" of the leaders of
   Bolshevism. Rather, there are strong institutional pressures at work
   within any state structure (even a so-called "semi-state") to turn it
   back into a "proper" state. We discuss this in more detail in
   [69]section H.3.9. However, we should not ignore that many of the roots
   of Bolshevik tyranny can be found in the contradictions of the Marxist
   theory of the state. As noted in the [70]last section, for Engels, the
   seizure of power by the party meant that the working class was in
   power. The Leninist tradition builds on this confusion between party
   and class power. It is clear that the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
   is, in fact, rule by the party. In Lenin's words:

     "Engels speaks of a government that is required for the domination
     of a class . . . Applied to the proletariat, it consequently means a
     government that is required for the domination of the proletariat,
     i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat for the effectuation of the
     socialist revolution." [Op. Cit., vol. 8, p. 279]

   The role of the working class in this state was also indicated, as
   "only a revolutionary dictatorship supported by the vast majority of
   the people can be at all durable." [Op. Cit., p. 291] In other words
   the "revolutionary government" has the power, not the working class in
   whose name it governs. In 1921 he made this explicit: "To govern you
   need an army of steeled revolutionary Communists. We have it, and it is
   called the Party." The "Party is the leader, the vanguard of the
   proletariat, which rules directly." For Lenin, as "long as we, the
   Party's Central Committee and the whole Party, continue to run things,
   that is govern we shall never - we cannot - dispense with . . .
   removals, transfers, appointments, dismissals, etc." of workers,
   officials and party members from above. [Op. Cit., vol. 32, p. 62, p.
   98 and p. 99] Unsurprisingly, these powers were used by Lenin, and then
   Stalin, to destroy opposition (although the latter applied coercive
   measures within the party which Lenin only applied to non-party
   opponents).

   So much for "workers' power," "socialism from below" and other such
   rhetoric.

   This vision of "socialism" being rooted in party power over the working
   class was the basis of the Communist International's resolution of the
   role of the party. This resolution is, therefore, important and worth
   discussing. It argues that the Communist Party "is part of the working
   class," namely its "most advanced, most class-conscious, and therefore
   most revolutionary part." It is "distinguished from the working class
   as a whole in that it grasps the whole historic path of the working
   class in its entirety and at every bend in that road endeavours to
   defend not the interests of individual groups or occupations but the
   interests of the working class as a whole." [Proceedings and Documents
   of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 1, p. 191] However, in response it
   can be argued that this simply means the "interests of the party" as
   only it can understand what "the interests of the working class as a
   whole" actually are. Thus we have the possibility of the party
   substituting its will for that of the working class simply because of
   what Leninists term the "uneven development" of the working class. As
   Alan Carter argues, these "conceptions of revolutionary organisation
   maintain political and ideological domination by retaining supervisory
   roles and notions of privileged access to knowledge . . . the term
   'class consciousness' is employed to facilitate such domination over
   the workers. It is not what the workers think, but what the party
   leaders think they ought to think that constitutes the revolutionary
   consciousness imputed to the workers." The ideological basis for a new
   class structure is created as the "Leninist revolutionary praxis . . .
   is carried forward to post-revolutionary institutions," [Marx: A
   Radical Critique, p. 175]

   The resolution stresses that before the revolution, the party "will
   encompass . . . only a minority of the workers." Even after the
   "seizure of power," it will still "not be able to unite them all into
   its ranks organisationally." It is only after the "final defeat of the
   bourgeois order" will "all or almost all workers begin to join" it.
   Thus the party is a minority of the working class. The resolution then
   goes on to state that "[e]very class struggle is a political struggle.
   This struggle, which inevitably becomes transformed into civil war, has
   as its goal the conquest of political power. Political power cannot be
   seized, organised, and directed other than by some kind of political
   party." [Op. Cit., p. 192, p. 193] And as the party is a "part" of the
   working class which cannot "unite" all workers "into its ranks," this
   means that political power can only be "seized, organised, and
   directed" by a minority.

   Thus we have minority rule, with the party (or more correctly its
   leaders) exercising political power. The idea that the party "must
   dissolve into the councils, that the councils can replace the Communist
   Party" is "fundamentally wrong and reactionary." This is because, to
   "enable the soviets to fulfil their historic tasks, there must . . . be
   a strong Communist Party, one that does not simply 'adapt' to the
   soviets but is able to make them renounce 'adaptation' to the
   bourgeoisie." [Op. Cit., p. 196] Thus rather than the workers' councils
   exercising power, their role is simply that of allowing the Communist
   Party to seize political power.

   As we indicated in [71]section H.3.4, the underlying assumption behind
   this resolution was made clear by Zinoviev during his introductory
   speech to the congress meeting which finally agreed the resolution: the
   dictatorship of the party was the dictatorship of the proletariat.
   Little wonder that Bertrand Russell, on his return from Lenin's Russia
   in 1920, wrote that:

     "Friends of Russia here [in Britain] think of the dictatorship of
     the proletariat as merely a new form of representative government,
     in which only working men and women have votes, and the
     constituencies are partly occupational, not geographical. They think
     that 'proletariat' means 'proletariat,' but 'dictatorship' does not
     quite mean 'dictatorship.' This is the opposite of the truth. When a
     Russian Communist speak of a dictatorship, he means the word
     literally, but when he speaks of the proletariat, he means the word
     in a Pickwickian sense. He means the 'class-conscious' part of the
     proletariat, i.e. the Communist Party. He includes people by no
     means proletarian (such as Lenin and Tchicherin) who have the right
     opinions, and he excludes such wage-earners as have not the right
     opinions, whom he classifies as lackeys of the bourgeoisie." [The
     Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, pp. 26-27]

   Significantly, Russell pointed, like Lenin, to the Comintern resolution
   on the role of the Communist Party. In addition, he noted the reason
   why this party dictatorship was required: "No conceivable system of
   free elections would give majorities to the Communists, either in the
   town or country." [Op. Cit., pp. 40-1]

   Nor are followers of Bolshevism shy in repeating its elitist
   conclusions. Founder and leader of the British SWP, Tony Cliff, for
   example, showed his lack of commitment to working class democracy when
   he opined that the "actual level of democracy, as well as centralism,
   [during a revolution] depends on three basic factors: 1. the strength
   of the proletariat; 2. the material and cultural legacy left to it by
   the old regime; and 3. the strength of capitalist resistance. The level
   of democracy feasible must be in direct proportion to the first two
   factors, and in inverse proportion to the third. The captain of an
   ocean liner can allow football to be played on his vessel; on a tiny
   raft in a stormy sea the level of tolerance is far lower." [Lenin, vol.
   3, p. 179] That Cliff compares working class democracy to football says
   it all. Rather than seeing it as the core gain of a revolution, he
   relegates it to the level of a game, which may or may not be
   "tolerated"! And need we speculate who the paternalistic "captain" in
   charge of the ship of the state would be?

   Replacing Cliff's revealing analogies we get the following: "The party
   in charge of a workers' state can allow democracy when the capitalist
   class is not resisting; when it is resisting strongly, the level of
   tolerance is far lower." So, democracy will be "tolerated" in the
   extremely unlikely situation that the capitalist class will not resist
   a revolution! That the party has no right to "tolerate" democracy or
   not is not even entertained by Cliff, its right to negate the basic
   rights of the working class is taken as a given. Clearly the key factor
   is that the party is in power. It may "tolerate" democracy, but
   ultimately his analogy shows that Bolshevism considers it as an added
   extra whose (lack of) existence in no way determines the nature of the
   "workers' state" (unless, of course, he is analysing Stalin's regime
   rather than Lenin's then it becomes of critical importance!). Perhaps,
   therefore, we may add another "basic factor" to Cliff's three; namely
   "4. the strength of working class support for the party." The level of
   democracy feasible must be in direct proportion to this factor, as the
   Bolsheviks made clear. As long as the workers vote for the party, then
   democracy is wonderful. If they do not, then their "wavering" and
   "passing moods" cannot be "tolerated" and democracy is replaced by the
   dictatorship of the party. Which is no democracy at all.

   Obviously, then, if, as Engels argued, "an essential feature of the
   state is a public power distinct from the mass of the people" then the
   regime advocated by Bolshevism is not a "semi-state" but, in fact, a
   normal state. Trotsky and Lenin are equally clear that said state
   exists to ensure that the "mass of the people" do not participate in
   public power, which is exercised by a minority, the party (or, more
   correctly, the leaders of the party). One of the key aims of this new
   state is to repress the "backward" or "wavering" sections of the
   working class (although, by definition, all sections of the working
   class are "backward" in relation to the "vanguard"). Hence the need for
   a "public power distinct from the people" (as the suppression of the
   strike wave and Kronstadt in 1921 shows, elite troops are always needed
   to stop the army siding with their fellow workers). And as proven by
   Trotsky's comments after he was squeezed out of power, this perspective
   was not considered as a product of "exceptional circumstances." Rather
   it was considered a basic lesson of the revolution, a position which
   was applicable to all future revolutions. In this, Lenin and other
   leading Bolsheviks concurred.

   The irony (and tragedy) of all this should not be lost. In his 1905
   diatribe against anarchism, Stalin had denied that Marxists aimed for
   party dictatorship. He stressed that there was "a dictatorship of the
   minority, the dictatorship of a small group . . . which is directed
   against the people . . . Marxists are the enemies of such a
   dictatorship, and they fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly
   and self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists." The practice of
   Bolshevism and the ideological revisions it generated easily refutes
   Stalin's claims. The practice of Bolshevism showed that his claim that
   "[a]t the head" of the "dictatorship of the proletarian majority . . .
   stand the masses" is in sharp contradiction with Bolshevik support for
   "revolutionary" governments. Either you have (to use Stalin's
   expression) "the dictatorship of the streets, of the masses, a
   dictatorship directed against all oppressors" or you have party power
   in the name of the street, of the masses. [Collected Works, vol. 1, p.
   371-2] The fundamental flaw in Leninism is that it confuses the two and
   so lays the ground for the very result anarchists predicted and Stalin
   denied.

   While anarchists are well aware of the need to defend a revolution (see
   [72]section H.2.1), we do not make the mistake of equating this with a
   state. Ultimately, the state cannot be used as an instrument of
   liberation - it is not designed for it. Which, incidentally, is why we
   have not discussed the impact of the Russian Civil War on the
   development of Bolshevik ideology. Simply put, the "workers' state" is
   proposed, by Leninists, as the means to defend a revolution. As such,
   you cannot blame what it is meant to be designed to withstand
   (counter-revolution and civil war) for its "degeneration." If the
   "workers' state" cannot handle what its advocates claim it exists for,
   then its time to look for an alternative and dump the concept in the
   dustbin of history.

   In summary, Bolshevism is based on a substantial revision of the
   Marxist theory of the state. While Marx and Engels were at pains to
   stress the accountability of their new state to the population under
   it, Leninism has made a virtue of the fact that the state has evolved
   to exclude that mass participation in order to ensure minority rule.
   Leninism has done so explicitly to allow the party to overcome the
   "wavering" of the working class, the very class it claims is the
   "ruling class" under socialism! In doing this, the Leninist tradition
   exploited the confused nature of the state theory of traditional
   Marxism. The Leninist theory of the state is flawed simply because it
   is based on creating a "state in the proper sense of the word," with a
   public power distinct from the mass of the people. This was the major
   lesson gained by the leading Bolsheviks (including Lenin and Trotsky)
   from the Russian Revolution and has its roots in the common Marxist
   error of confusing party power with working class power. So when
   Leninists point to Lenin's State and Revolution as the definitive
   Leninist theory of the state, anarchists simply point to the lessons
   Lenin himself gained from actually conducting a revolution. Once we do,
   the slippery slope to the Leninist solution to the contradictions
   inherit in the Marxist theory of the state can be seen, understood and
   combated.

H.3.9 Is the state simply an agent of economic power?

   As we discussed in [73]section H.3.7, the Marxist theory of the state
   confuses an empirical analysis of the state with a metaphysical one.
   While Engels is aware that the state developed to ensure minority class
   rule and, as befits its task, evolved specific characteristics to
   execute that role, he also raised the idea that the state ("as a rule")
   is "the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class" and
   "through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant
   class." Thus the state can be considered, in essence, as "nothing but a
   machine for the oppression of one class by another." "At a certain
   stage of economic development", Engels stressed, "which was necessarily
   bound up with the split in society into classes, the state became a
   necessity owning to this split." [Selected Works, pp. 577-8, p. 579 and
   p. 258] For Lenin, this was "the basic idea of Marxism on the question
   of the historical role and meaning of the state," namely that "the
   state is an organ of class rule, the organ for the oppression of one
   class by another." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 273 and p. 274]

   The clear implication is that the state is simply an instrument,
   without special interests of its own. If this is the case, the use of a
   state by the proletariat is unproblematic (and so the confusion between
   working class self-organisation and the state we have discussed in
   various sections above is irrelevant). This argument can lead to
   simplistic conclusions, such as once a "revolutionary" government is in
   power in a "workers state" we need not worry about abuses of power or
   even civil liberties (this position was commonplace in Bolshevik ranks
   during the Russian Civil War, for example). It also is at the heart of
   Trotsky's contortions with regards to Stalinism, refusing to see the
   state bureaucracy as a new ruling class simply because the state, by
   definition, could not play such a role.

   For anarchists, this position is a fundamental weakness of Marxism, a
   sign that the mainstream Marxist position significantly misunderstands
   the nature of the state and the needs of social revolution. However, we
   must stress that anarchists would agree that the state generally does
   serve the interests of the economically dominant classes. Bakunin, for
   example, argued that the State "is authority, domination, and forced,
   organised by the property-owning and so-called enlightened classes
   against the masses." He saw the social revolution as destroying
   capitalism and the state at the same time, that is "to overturn the
   State's domination, and that of the privileged classes whom it solely
   represents." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 140] However, anarchists do not
   reduce our analysis and understanding of the state to this simplistic
   Marxist level. While being well aware that the state is the means of
   ensuring the domination of an economic elite, as we discussed in
   [74]section B.2.5, anarchists recognise that the state machine also has
   interests of its own. The state, for anarchists, is the delegation of
   power into the hands of a few. This creates, by its very nature, a
   privileged position for those at the top of the hierarchy:

     "A government [or state], that is a group of people entrusted with
     making the laws and empowered to use the collective force to oblige
     each individual to obey them, is already a privileged class and cut
     off from the people. As any constituted body would do, it will
     instinctively seek to extend its powers, to be beyond public
     control, to impose its own policies and to give priority to its
     special interests. Having been put in a privileged position, the
     government is already at odds with the people whose strength it
     disposes of." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 36]

   The Bolshevik regime during the Russia revolution proved the validity
   of this analysis. The Bolsheviks seized power in the name of the
   soviets yet soon marginalised, gerrymandered and disbanded them to
   remain in power while imposing a vision of socialism (more correctly,
   state capitalism) at odds with popular aspirations.

   Why this would be the case is not hard to discover. Given that the
   state is a highly centralised, top-down structure it is unsurprising
   that it develops around itself a privileged class, a bureaucracy,
   around it. The inequality in power implied by the state is a source of
   privilege and oppression independent of property and economic class.
   Those in charge of the state's institutions would aim to protect (and
   expand) their area of operation, ensuring that they select individuals
   who share their perspectives and who they can pass on their positions.
   By controlling the flow of information, of personnel and resources, the
   members of the state's higher circles can ensure its, and their own,
   survival and prosperity. As such, politicians who are elected are at a
   disadvantage. The state is the permanent collection of institutions
   that have entrenched power structures and interests. The politicians
   come and go while the power in the state lies in its institutions due
   to their permanence. It is to be expected that such institutions would
   have their own interests and would pursue them whenever they can.

   This would not fundamentally change in a new "workers' state" as it is,
   like all states, based on the delegation and centralisation of power
   into a few hands. Any "workers' government" would need a new apparatus
   to enforce its laws and decrees. It would need effective means of
   gathering and collating information. It would thus create "an entirely
   new ladder of administration to extend it rule and make itself obeyed."
   While a social revolution needs mass participation, the state limits
   initiative to the few who are in power and "it will be impossible for
   one or even a number of individuals to elaborate the social forms"
   required, which "can only be the collective work of the masses . . .
   Any kind of external authority will merely be an obstacle, a hindrance
   to the organic work that has to be accomplished; it will be no better
   than a source of discord and of hatreds." [Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel,
   p. 169 and pp. 176-7]

   Rather than "withering away," any "workers' state" would tend to grow
   in terms of administration and so the government creates around itself
   a class of bureaucrats whose position is different from the rest of
   society. This would apply to production as well. Being unable to manage
   everything, the state would have to re-introduce hierarchical
   management in order to ensure its orders are met and that a suitable
   surplus is extracted from the workers to feed the needs of the state
   machine. By creating an economically powerful class which it can rely
   on to discipline the workforce, it would simply recreate capitalism
   anew in the form of "state capitalism" (this is precisely what happened
   during the Russian Revolution). To enforce its will onto the people it
   claims to represent, specialised bodies of armed people (police, army)
   would be required and soon created. All of which is to be expected, as
   state socialism "entrusts to a few the management of social life and
   [so] leads to the exploitation and oppression of the masses by the
   few." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 47]

   This process takes time. However, the tendency for government to escape
   from popular control and to generate privileged and powerful
   institutions around it can be seen in all revolutions, including the
   Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution. In the former, the Communal
   Council was "largely ignored . . . after it was installed. The
   insurrection, the actual management of the city's affairs and finally
   the fighting against the Versaillese, were undertaken mainly by popular
   clubs, the neighbourhood vigilance committees, and the battalions of
   the National Guard. Had the Paris Commune (the Municipal Council)
   survived, it is extremely doubtful that it could have avoided conflict
   with these loosely formed street and militia formations. Indeed, by the
   end of April, some six weeks after the insurrection, the Commune
   constituted an 'all-powerful' Committee of Public Safety, a body
   redolent with memories of the Jacobin dictatorship and the Terror ,
   which suppressed not only the right in the Great [French] Revolution of
   a century earlier, but also the left." [Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity
   Anarchism, p. 90] A minority of council members (essentially those
   active in the International) stated that "the Paris Commune has
   surrendered its authority to a dictatorship" and it was "hiding behind
   a dictatorship that the electorate have not authorised us to accept or
   to recognise." [The Paris Commune of 1871: The View from the Left,
   Eugene Schulkind (ed.), p. 187] The Commune was crushed before this
   process could fully unfold, but the omens were there (although it would
   have undoubtedly been hindered by the local scale of the institutions
   involved). As we discuss in [75]section H.6, a similar process of a
   "revolutionary" government escaping from popular control occurred right
   from the start of the Russian Revolution. The fact the Bolshevik regime
   lasted longer and was more centralised (and covered a larger area)
   ensured that this process developed fully, with the "revolutionary"
   government creating around itself the institutions (the bureaucracy)
   which finally subjected the politicians and party leaders to its
   influence and then domination.

   Simply put, the vision of the state as merely an instrument of class
   rule blinds its supporters to the dangers of political inequality in
   terms of power, the dangers inherent in giving a small group of people
   power over everyone else. The state has certain properties because it
   is a state and one of these is that it creates a bureaucratic class
   around it due to its centralised, hierarchical nature. Within
   capitalism, the state bureaucracy is (generally) under the control of
   the capitalist class. However, to generalise from this specific case is
   wrong as the state bureaucracy is a class in itself - and so trying to
   abolish classes without abolishing the state is doomed to failure:

     "The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class:
     the sacerdotal class, the nobility, the bourgeoisie - and finally,
     when all the other classes have exhausted themselves, the class of
     the bureaucracy enters upon the stage and then the State falls, or
     rises, if you please to the position of a machine." [Bakunin, The
     Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 208]

   Thus the state cannot simply be considered as an instrument of rule by
   economic classes. It can be quite an effective parasitical force in its
   own right, as both anthropological and historical evidence suggest. The
   former raises the possibility that the state arose before economic
   classes and that its roots are in inequalities in power (i.e.
   hierarchy) within society, not inequalities of wealth. The latter
   points to examples of societies in which the state was not, in fact, an
   instrument of (economic) class rule but rather pursued an interest of
   its own.

   As regards anthropology, Michael Taylor summarises that the "evidence
   does not give [the Marxist] proposition [that the rise of economic
   classes caused the creation of the state] a great deal of support. Much
   of the evidence which has been offered in support of it shows only that
   the primary states, not long after their emergence, were economically
   stratified. But this is of course consistent also with the simultaneous
   rise . . . of political and economic stratification, or with the prior
   development of the state - i.e. of political stratification - and the
   creation of economic stratification by the ruling class." [Community,
   Anarchy and Liberty, p. 132] He quotes Elman Service on this:

     "In all of the archaic civilisations and historically known
     chiefdoms and primitive states the 'stratification' was . . . mainly
     of two classes, the governors and the governed - political strata,
     not strata of ownership groups." [quoted by Taylor, Op. Cit., p.
     133]

   Taylor argues that it the "weakening of community and the development
   of gross inequalities are the concomitants and consequences of state
   formation." He points to the "germ of state formation" being in the
   informal social hierarchies which exist in tribal societies. [Op. Cit.,
   p. 133 and p. 134] Thus the state is not, initially, a product of
   economic classes but rather an independent development based on
   inequalities of social power. Harold Barclay, an anarchist who has
   studied anthropological evidence on this matter, concurs:

     "In Marxist theory power derives primarily, if not exclusively, from
     control of the means of production and distribution of wealth, that
     is, from economic factors. Yet, it is evident that power derived
     from knowledge - and usually 'religious' style knowledge - is often
     highly significant, at least in the social dynamics of small
     societies. . . Economic factors are hardly the only source of power.
     Indeed, we see this in modern society as well, where the capitalist
     owner does not wield total power. Rather technicians and other
     specialists command it as well, not because of their economic
     wealth, but because of their knowledge." [quoted by Alan Carter,
     Marx: A Radical Critique, p. 191]

   If, as Bookchin summarises, "hierarchies precede classes" then trying
   to use a hierarchical structure like the state to abolish them is
   simply wishful thinking.

   As regards more recent human history, there have been numerous examples
   of the state existing without being an instrument of (economic) class
   rule. Rather, the state was the ruling class. While the most obvious
   example is the Stalinist regimes where the state bureaucracy ruled over
   a state capitalist economy, there have been plenty of others, as Murray
   Bookchin pointed out:

     "Each State is not necessarily an institutionalised system of
     violence in the interests of a specific ruling class, as Marxism
     would have us believe. There are many examples of States that were
     the 'ruling class' and whose own interests existed quite apart from
     - even in antagonism to - privileged, presumably 'ruling' classes in
     a given society. The ancient world bears witness to distinctly
     capitalistic classes, often highly privileged and exploitative, that
     were bilked by the State, circumscribed by it, and ultimately
     devoured by it - which is in part why a capitalist society never
     emerged out of the ancient world. Nor did the State 'represent'
     other class interests, such as landed nobles, merchants, craftsmen,
     and the like. The Ptolemaic State in Hellenistic Egypt was an
     interest in its own right and 'represented' no other interest than
     its own. The same is true of the Aztec and the Inca States until
     they were replaced by Spanish invaders. Under the Emperor Domitian,
     the Roman State became the principal 'interest' in the empire,
     superseding the interests of even the landed aristocracy which held
     such primacy in Mediterranean society. . .

     "Near-Eastern State, like the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Persian,
     were virtually extended households of individual monarchs . . .
     Pharaohs, kings, and emperors nominally held the land (often
     co-jointly with the priesthood) in the trust of the deities, who
     were either embodied in the monarch or were represented by him. The
     empires of Asian and North African kings were 'households' and the
     population was seen as 'servants of the palace' . . .

     "These 'states,' in effect, were not simply engines of exploitation
     or control in the interests of a privileged 'class.' . . . The
     Egyptian State was very real but it 'represented' nothing other than
     itself."
     [Remaking Society, pp. 67-8]

   Bakunin pointed to Turkish Serbia, where economically dominant classes
   "do not even exist - there is only a bureaucratic class. Thus, the
   Serbian state will crush the Serbian people for the sole purpose of
   enabling Serbian bureaucrats to live a fatter life." [Statism and
   Anarchy, p. 54] Leninist Tony Cliff, in his attempt to prove that
   Stalinist Russia was state capitalist and its bureaucracy a ruling
   class, pointed to various societies which "had deep class
   differentiation, based not on private property but on state property.
   Such systems existed in Pharaonic Egypt, Moslem Egypt, Iraq, Persia and
   India." He discusses the example of Arab feudalism in more detail,
   where "the feudal lord had no permanent domain of his own, but a member
   of a class which collectively controlled the land and had the right to
   appropriate rent." This was "ownership of the land by the state" rather
   than by individuals. [State Capitalism in Russia, pp. 316-8] As such,
   the idea that the state is simply an instrument of class rule seems
   unsupportable. As Gaston Leval argued, "the State, by its nature, tends
   to have a life of its own." [quoted by Sam Dolgoff, A Critique of
   Marxism, p. 10]

   Marx's "implicit theory of the state - a theory which, in reducing
   political power to the realisation of the interests of the dominant
   economic classes, precludes any concern with the potentially
   authoritarian and oppressive outcome of authoritarian and centralised
   revolutionary methods . . . This danger (namely, the dismissal of
   warranted fears concerning political power) is latent in the central
   features of Marx's approach to politics." [Alan Carter, Op. Cit., p.
   219] To summarise the obvious conclusion:

     "By focusing too much attention on the economic structure of society
     and insufficient attention on the problems of political power, Marx
     has left a legacy we would done better not to inherit. The perceived
     need for authoritarian and centralised revolutionary organisation is
     sanctioned by Marx's theory because his theoretical subordination of
     political power to economic classes apparently renders
     post-revolutionary political power unproblematic." [Op. Cit., p.
     231]

   Many factors contributed to Stalinism, including Marxism's defective
   theory of the state. In stressing that socialism meant nationalising
   property, it lead to state management which, in turn, expropriated the
   working class as a vast managerial bureaucracy was required to run it.
   Moreover, Marxism disguised this new ruling class as it argues that the
   state 'represents' a class and had no interests of itself. Thus we have
   Trotsky's utter inability to understand Stalinism and his insane
   formula that the proletariat remained the ruling class under Stalin
   (or, for that matter, under himself and Lenin)! Simply put, by arguing
   that the state was an instrument of class rule, Marxism ensured it
   presented a false theory of social change and could not analysis its
   resulting class rule when the inevitable consequences of this approach
   was implemented.

   However, there is more to Marxism than its dominant theory of the
   state. Given this blindness of orthodox Marxism to this issue, it seems
   ironic that one of the people responsible for it also provides
   anarchists with evidence to back up our argument that the state is not
   simply an instrument of class rule but rather has interests of its own.
   Thus we find Engels arguing that proletariat, "in order not to lose
   again its only just conquered supremacy," would have "to safeguard
   itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all,
   without exception, subject to recall at any moment." [Selected Works,
   p. 257] Yet, if the state was simply an instrument of class rule such
   precautions would not be necessary. Engels comments show an awareness
   that the state can have interests of its own, that it is not simply a
   machine of class rule.

   Aware of the obvious contradiction, Engels argued that the state "is,
   as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class
   which, through the medium of the state, becomes the politically
   dominant class . . . By way of exception, however, periods occur in
   which the warring classes balance each other, so nearly that the state
   power, as ostensible mediator, acquires, for the moment, a certain
   degree of independence of both." He pointed to the "absolute monarchy
   of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries", which held the balance
   between the nobility and the bourgeoisie against one another as well as
   "the Bonapartism of the First, and still more of the Second French
   Empire." It should be noted that, elsewhere, Engels was more precise on
   how long the state was, in fact, controlled by the bourgeoisie, namely
   two years: "In France, where the bourgeoisie as such, as a class in its
   entirety, held power for only two years, 1849 and 1850, under the
   republic, it was able to continue its social existence only by
   abdicating its political power to Louis Bonaparte and the army." [Op.
   Cit., pp. 577-8 and p. 238] So, in terms of French history, Engels
   argued that "by way of exception" accounted for over 250 hundred years,
   the 17th and 18th centuries and most of the 19th, bar a two year
   period! Even if we are generous and argue that the 1830 revolution
   placed one section of the bourgeoisie (finance capital) into political
   power, we are still left with over 200 hundred years of state
   "independence" from classes! Given this, it would be fair to suggest
   that the "exception" should be when it is an instrument of class rule,
   not when it is not!

   This was no isolated case. In Prussia "members of the bourgeoisie have
   a majority in the Chamber . . . But where is their power over the
   state? . . . the mass of the bourgeoisie . . . does not want to rule."
   [Op. Cit., pp. 236-7] And so, in Germany, there exists "alongside the
   basic condition of the old absolute monarchy - an equilibrium between
   the landowner aristocracy and the bourgeoisie - the basic condition of
   modern Bonapartism - an equilibrium between the bourgeoisie and the
   proletariat." This meant that "both in the old absolute monarchy and in
   the modern Bonapartist monarchy the real government power lies in the
   hands of a special caste of army officers and state officials" and so
   the "independence of this case, which appears to occupy a position
   outside and, so to speak, above society, gives the state the semblance
   of independence in relation to society." However, this did not stop
   Engels asserting that the "state is nothing but the organised
   collective power of the exploiting classes, the landlords and the
   capitalists as against the exploited classes, the peasants and the
   workers. What the individual capitalists . . . do not want, their state
   also does not want." [Collected Works, vol. 23, p. 363 and p. 362]

   So, according to Engels, the executive of the state, like the state
   itself, can become independent from classes if the opposing classes
   were balanced. This analysis, it must be pointed out, was an
   improvement on the earliest assertions of Marx and Engels on the state.
   In the 1840s, it was a case of the "independence of the state is only
   found nowadays in those countries where the estates have not yet
   completely developed into classes . . . where consequently no section
   of the population can achieve dominance over the others." [Op. Cit.,
   vol. 5, p. 90] For Engels, "[f]rom the moment the state administration
   and legislature fall under the control of the bourgeoisie, the
   independence of the bureaucracy ceases to exist." [Op. Cit., vol. 6, p.
   88] It must, therefore, have come as a surprise for Marx and Engels
   when the state and its bureaucracy appeared to become independent in
   France under Napoleon III.

   Talking of which, it should be noted that, initially for Marx, under
   Bonapartism "the state power is not suspended in mid air. Bonaparte
   represents a class, and the most numerous class of French society at
   that, the small-holding [Parzellen] peasants." The Bonaparte "who
   dispersed the bourgeois parliament is the chosen of the peasantry."
   However, this class is "incapable of enforcing their class interests in
   their own name . . . They cannot represent themselves, they must be
   represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their
   master, as an authority over them, as an unlimited governmental power .
   . . The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore,
   finds its final expression in the executive power subordinating society
   to itself." Yet Marx himself admits that this regime experienced
   "peasant risings in half of France", organised "raids on the peasants
   by the army" and the "mass incarceration and transportation of
   peasants." A strange form of class rule, when the class represented is
   oppressed by the regime! Rest assured, though, the "Bonaparte dynasty
   represents not the revolutionary, but the conservative peasant." Then
   Marx, without comment, pronounced Bonaparte to be "the representative
   of the lumpenproletariat to which he himself, his entourage, his
   government and his army belong." [Selected Works, p. 170, p. 171 and p.
   176]

   It would be fair to say that Marx's analysis is somewhat confused and
   seems an ad hoc explanation to the fact that in a modern society the
   state appeared to become independent of the economically dominant
   class. Yet if a regime is systematically oppressing a class then it is
   fair to conclude that is not representing that class in any way.
   Bonaparte's power did not, in other words, rest on the peasantry.
   Rather, like fascism, it was a means by which the bourgeoisie could
   break the power of the working class and secure its own class position
   against possible social revolution. As Bakunin argued, it was a
   "despotic imperial system" which the bourgeois "themselves founded out
   of fear of the Social Revolution." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 63] Thus the
   abolition of bourgeois rule was more apparent than real:

     "As soon as the people took equality and liberty seriously, the
     bourgeoisie . . . retreated into reaction . . . They began by
     suppressing universal suffrage . . . The fear of Social Revolution .
     . . . hurled this downfallen class . . . into the arms of the
     dictatorship of Napoleon III . . . We should not think that the
     Bourgeois Gentlemen were too inconvenienced . . . [Those who]
     applied themselves earnestly and exclusively to the great concern of
     the bourgeoisie, the exploitation of the people . . . were well
     protected and powerfully supported . . . All went well, according to
     the desires of the bourgeoisie." [Op. Cit., pp. 62-3]

   Somewhat ironically, then, a key example used by Marxists for the
   "independence" of the state is no such thing. Bonapartism did not
   represent a "balance" between the proletariat and bourgeoisie but
   rather the most naked form of state rule required in the fact of
   working class revolt. It was a counter-revolutionary regime which
   reflected a defeat for the working class, not a "balance" between it
   and the capitalist class.

   Marx's confusions arose from his belief that, for the bourgeoisie, the
   parliamentary republic "was the unavoidable condition of their common
   rule, the sole form of state in which their general class interest
   subjected itself at the same time both the claims of their particular
   factions and all the remaining classes of society." [Selected Works,
   pp. 152-3] The abolition of the republic, the replacement of the
   government, was, for him, the end of the political rule of the
   bourgeoisie as he argued that "the industrial bourgeoisie applauds with
   servile bravos the coup dtat of December 2, the annihilation of
   parliament, the downfall of its own rule, the dictatorship of
   Bonaparte." He repeated this identification: "Passing of the
   parliamentary regime and of bourgeois rule. Victory of Bonaparte."
   [Selected Writings, pp. 164-5 and p. 166] Political rule was equated to
   which party held power and so, logically, universal suffrage was "the
   equivalent of political power for the working class . . . where the
   proletariat forms the large majority of the population." Its
   "inevitable result would be "the political supremacy of the working
   class." [Collected Works, vol. 11, pp. 335-6] This was, of course,
   simply wrong (on both counts) as he, himself, seemed to became aware of
   two decades later.

   In 1871 he argued that "the State power assumed more and more the
   character of the national power of capital over labour, of a public
   force organised for social enslavement, of an engine of class
   despotism." This meant that "in view of the threatened upheaval of the
   proletariat, [the bourgeoisie] now used that State power mercilessly
   and ostentatiously as the national war-engine of capital against
   labour" and so were "bound not only to invest the executive with
   continually increased powers of repression, but at the same time to
   divest their own parliamentary stronghold . . . of all its own means of
   defence against the Executive. The Executive, in the person of Louis
   Bonaparte, turned them out." Marx now admitted that this regime only
   "professed to rest upon the peasantry" while, "[i]n reality, it was the
   only form of government possible at a time when the bourgeoisie had
   already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired, the faculty
   of ruling the nation." However, "[u]nder its sway, bourgeois society,
   freed from political cares, attained a development unexpected even by
   itself." [Selected Works, p. 285, p. 286, pp. 286-7 and p. 287]

   Yet capitalists often do well under regimes which suppress the basic
   liberties of the working class and so the bourgeoisie remained the
   ruling class and the state remained its organ. In other words, there is
   no "balance" between classes under Bonapartism even if the political
   regime is not subject to electoral control by the bourgeoisie and has
   more independence to pursue its own agenda.

   This is not the only confirmation of the anarchist critique of the
   Marxist theory of the state which can be found in Marxism itself. Marx,
   at times, also admitted the possibility of the state not being an
   instrument of (economic) class rule. For example, he mentioned the
   so-called "Asiatic Mode of Production" in which "there are no private
   landowners" but rather "the state . . . which confronts" the peasants
   "directly as simultaneously landowner and sovereign, rent and tax
   coincide . . . Here the state is the supreme landlord. Sovereignty here
   is landed property concentrated on a national scale." [Capital, vol. 3,
   p. 927] Thus "the State [is] the real landlord" in the "Asiatic system"
   [Collected Works, vol. 12, p. 215] In other words, the ruling class
   could be a state bureaucracy and so be independent of economic classes.
   Unfortunately this analysis remained woefully undeveloped and no
   conclusions were drawn from these few comments, perhaps unsurprisingly
   as it undermines the claim that the state is merely the instrument of
   the economically dominant class. It also, of course, has applicability
   to state socialism and certain conclusions could be reached that
   suggested it, as Bakunin warned, would be a new form of class rule.

   The state bureaucracy as the ruling class can be seen in Soviet Russia
   (and the other so-called "socialist" regimes such as China and Cuba).
   As libertarian socialist Ante Ciliga put it, "the manner in which Lenin
   organised industry had handed it over entirely into the hands of the
   bureaucracy," and so the workers "became once more the wage-earning
   manpower in other people's factories. Of socialism there remained in
   Russia no more than the word." [The Russian Enigma, p. 280 and p. 286]
   Capitalism became state capitalism under Lenin and Trotsky and so the
   state, as Bakunin predicted and feared, became the new ruling class
   under Marxism (see [76]section H.3.14 for more discussion of this).

   The confusions of the Marxist theory of the state ensured that Trotsky,
   for example, failed to recognise the obvious, namely that the Stalinist
   state bureaucracy was a ruling class. Rather, it was the "new ruling
   caste", or "the ruling stratum". While admitting, at one stage, that
   the "transfer of the factories to the State changed the situation of
   the workers only juridically" Trotsky then ignored the obvious
   conclusion that this has left the working class as an exploited class
   under a (new) form of capitalism to assert that the "nature" of
   Stalinist Russia was "a proletarian State" because of its
   "nationalisation" of the means of life (which "constitute the basis of
   the Soviet social structure"). He admitted that the "Soviet Bureaucracy
   has expropriated the proletariat politically" but has done so "in order
   by methods of its own to defend the social conquests" of the October
   Revolution. He did not ponder too deeply the implications of admitting
   that the "means of production belong to the State. But the State, so to
   speak, 'belongs' to the bureaucracy." [The Revolution Betrayed, p. 93,
   p. 136, p. 228, p. 235 and p. 236] If that is so, only ideology can
   stop the obvious confusion being drawn, namely that the state
   bureaucracy was the ruling class. But that is precisely what happened
   with Trotsky's confusion expressing itself thusly:

     "In no other regime has a bureaucracy ever achieved such a degree of
     independence from the dominating class . . . it is something more
     than a bureaucracy. It is in the full sense of the word the sole
     privileged and commanding stratum in the Soviet society." [Op. Cit.,
     p. 235]

   By this, Trotsky suggested that the working class was the "dominating
   class" under Stalinism! In fact, the bureaucracy "continues to preserve
   State property only to the extent it fears the proletariat" while, at
   the same time, the bureaucracy has "become [society's] lord" and "the
   Soviet state has acquired a totalitarian-bureaucratic character"! This
   nonsense is understandable, given the unwillingness to draw the obvious
   conclusion from the fact that the bureaucracy was "compelled to defend
   State property as the source of its power and its income. In this
   aspect of its activity it still remains a weapon of proletarian
   dictatorship." [Op. Cit., p. 112, p. 107, p. 238 and p. 236] By
   commanding nationalised property, the bureaucracy, like private
   capitalists, could exploit the labour of the working class and did.
   That the state owned the means of production did not stop this being a
   form of class system.

   It is simply nonsense to claim, as Trotsky did, that the "anatomy of
   society is determined by its economic relations. So long as the forms
   of property that have been created by the October Revolution are not
   overthrown, the proletariat remains the ruling class." [Writings of
   Leon Trotsky 1933-34, p. 125] How could the proletariat be the "ruling
   class" if it were under the heel of a totalitarian dictatorship? State
   ownership of property was precisely the means by which the bureaucracy
   enforced its control over production and so the source of its economic
   power and privileges. To state the obvious, if the working class does
   not control the property it is claimed to own then someone else does.
   The economic relationship thus generated is a hierarchical one, in
   which the working class is an oppressed class.

   Significantly, Trotsky combated those of his followers who drew the
   same conclusions as had anarchists and libertarian Marxists while he
   and Lenin held the reigns of power. Perhaps this ideological blindness
   is understandable, given Trotsky's key role in creating the bureaucracy
   in the first place. So Trotsky did criticise, if in a confused manner,
   the Stalinist regime for its "injustice, oppression, differential
   consumption, and so on, even if he had supported them when he himself
   was in the elite." [Neil C. Fernandez, Capitalism and Class Struggle in
   the USSR, p. 180]). Then there is the awkward conclusion that if the
   bureaucracy were a ruling class under Stalin then Russia was also state
   capitalist under Lenin and Trotsky for the economic relations were
   identical in both (this obvious conclusion haunts those, like the
   British SWP, who maintain that Stalinism was State Capitalist but not
   Bolshevism - see [77]section H.3.13). Suffice to say, if the state
   itself can be the "economically dominant class" then the state cannot
   be a mere instrument of an economic class.

   Moreover, Engels also presented another analysis of the state which
   suggested that it arose before economic classes appeared. In 1886 he
   wrote of how society "creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding
   of its common interests against internal and external attacks. This
   organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes
   itself independent vis--vis society: and, indeed, the more so, the
   more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly
   enforces the supremacy of that class." "Society", he argued four years
   later, "gives rise to certain common function which it cannot dispense
   with. The persons appointed for this purpose form a new branch of the
   division of labour within society. This gives them particular
   interests, distinct, too, from the interests of those who empowered
   them; they make themselves independent of the latter and - the state is
   in being." [Op. Cit., p. 617 and pp. 685-6] In this schema, the
   independence of the state comes first and is then captured by rising
   economically powerful class.

   Regardless of when and how the state arises, the key thing is that
   Engels recognised that the state was "endowed with relative
   independence." Rather than being a simple expression of economic
   classes and their interests, this "new independent power, while having
   in the main to follow the movement of production, reacts in its turn,
   by virtue of its inherent relative independence - that is, the relative
   independence once transferred to it and gradually further developed -
   upon the conditions and course of production. It is the interaction of
   two unequal forces: on the one hand, the economic movement, on the
   other, the new political power, which strives for as much independence
   as possible, and which, having once been established, is endowed with a
   movement of its own." There were three types of "reaction of the state
   power upon economic development." The state can act "in the same
   direction" and then it is "more rapid" or it can "oppose" it and "can
   do great damage to the economic development." Finally, it can "prevent
   the economic development proceeding along certain lines, and prescribe
   other lines." Finally he stated "why do we fight for the political
   dictatorship of the proletariat if political power is economically
   impotent? Force (that is, state power) is also an economic power!" [Op.
   Cit., p. 686 and p. 689]

   Conversely, anarchists reply, why fight for "the political dictatorship
   of the proletariat" when you yourself admit that the state can become
   "independent" of the classes you claim it represents? Particularly when
   you increase its potential for becoming independent by centralising it
   even more and giving it economic powers to complement its political
   ones!

   So the Marxist theory of the state is that is an instrument of class
   rule - except when it is not. Its origins lie in the rise of class
   antagonisms - except when it does not. It arises after the break up of
   society into classes - except when it does not. Which means, of course,
   the state is not just an instrument of class rule and, correspondingly,
   the anarchist critique is confirmed. This explains why the analysis of
   the "Asiatic Mode of Production" is so woefully underdeveloped in Marx
   and Engels as well as the confused and contradictory attempt to
   understand Bonapartism.

   To summarise, if the state can become "independent" of economic classes
   or even exist without an economically dominant class, then that implies
   that it is no mere machine, no mere "instrument" of class rule. It
   implies the anarchist argument that the state has interests of its own,
   generated by its essential features and so, therefore, cannot be used
   by a majority class as part of its struggle for liberation is correct.
   Simply put, Anarchists have long "realised - feared - that any State
   structure, whether or not socialist or based on universal suffrage, has
   a certain independence from society, and so may serve the interests of
   those within State institutions rather than the people as a whole or
   the proletariat." [Brian Morris, Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, p.
   134] Thus "the state certainly has interests of its own . . . [,] acts
   to protect [them] . . . and protects the interests of the bourgeoisie
   when these interests happen to coincide with its own, as, indeed, they
   usually do." [Carter, Op. Cit., p. 226]

   As Mark Leier quips, Marxism "has usually - save when battling
   anarchists - argued that the state has some 'relative autonomy' and is
   not a direct, simple reflex of a given economic system." [Bakunin: The
   Constructive Passion, p. 275] The reason why the more sophisticated
   Marxist analysis of the state is forgotten when it comes to attacking
   anarchism should be obvious - it undermines the both the Marxist
   critique of anarchism and its own theory of the state. Ironically,
   arguments and warnings about the "independence" of the state by
   Marxists imply that the state has interests of its own and cannot be
   considered simply as an instrument of class rule. They suggest that the
   anarchist analysis of the state is correct, namely that any structure
   based on delegated power, centralisation and hierarchy must,
   inevitably, have a privileged class in charge of it, a class whose
   position enables it to not only exploit and oppress the rest of society
   but also to effectively escape from popular control and accountability.
   This is no accident. The state is structured to enforce minority rule
   and exclude the majority.

H.3.10 Has Marxism always supported the idea of workers' councils?

   One of the most widespread myths associated with Marxism is the idea
   that Marxism has consistently aimed to smash the current (bourgeois)
   state and replace it by a "workers' state" based on working class
   organisations created during a revolution.

   This myth is sometimes expressed by those who should know better (i.e.
   Marxists). According to John Rees (of the British Socialist Workers
   Party) it has been a "cornerstone of revolutionary theory" that "the
   soviet is a superior form of democracy because it unifies political and
   economic power." This "cornerstone" has, apparently, existed "since
   Marx's writings on the Paris Commune." ["In Defence of October,", pp.
   3-82, International Socialism, no. 52, p. 25] In fact, nothing could be
   further from the truth, as Marx's writings on the Paris Commune prove
   beyond doubt.

   The Paris Commune, as Marx himself noted, was "formed of the municipal
   councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the
   town." [Selected Works, p. 287] As Marx made clear, it was definitely
   not based on delegates from workplaces and so could not unify political
   and economic power. Indeed, to state that the Paris Commune was a
   soviet is simply a joke, as is the claim that Marxists supported
   soviets as revolutionary organs to smash and replace the state from
   1871. In fact Marxists did not subscribe to this "cornerstone of
   revolutionary theory" until 1917 when Lenin argued that the Soviets
   would be the best means of ensuring a Bolshevik government. Which
   explains why Lenin's use of the slogan "All Power to the Soviets" and
   call for the destruction of the bourgeois state came as such a shock to
   his fellow Marxists. Unsurprisingly, given the long legacy of anarchist
   calls to smash the state and their vision of a socialist society built
   from below by workers councils, many Marxists called Lenin an
   anarchist! Therefore, the idea that Marxists have always supported
   workers councils' is untrue and any attempt to push this support back
   to 1871 simply a farcical.

   Not all Marxists are as ignorant of their political tradition as Rees.
   As his fellow party member Chris Harman recognised, "[e]ven the 1905
   [Russian] revolution gave only the most embryonic expression of how a
   workers' state would in fact be organised. The fundamental forms of
   workers' power - the soviets (workers' councils) - were not
   recognised." It was "[n]ot until the February revolution [of 1917 that]
   soviets became central in Lenin's writings and thought." [Party and
   Class, p. 18 and p. 19] Before then, Marxists had held the position, to
   quote Karl Kautsky from 1909 (who is, in turn, quoting his own words
   from 1893), that the democratic republic "was the particular form of
   government in which alone socialism can be realised." He added, after
   the Russian Revolution, that "not a single Marxist revolutionary
   repudiated me, neither Rosa Luxemburg nor Klara Zetkin, neither Lenin
   nor Trotsky." [The Road to Power, p. 34 and p. xlviii]

   Lenin himself, even after Social Democracy supported their respective
   states in the First World War and before his return to Russia, still
   argued that Kautsky's work contained "a most complete exposition of the
   tasks of our times" and "it was most advantageous to the German
   Social-Democrats (in the sense of the promise they held out), and
   moreover came from the pen of the most eminent writer of the Second
   International . . . Social-Democracy . . . wants conquest of political
   power by the proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat."
   [Collected Works, vol. 21, p. 94] There was no hint that Marxism stood
   for anything other than seizing power in a republic, as expounded by
   the likes of Kautsky.

   Before continuing it should be stressed that Harman's summary is
   correct only if we are talking about the Marxist movement. Looking at
   the wider revolutionary movement, two groups definitely recognised the
   importance of the soviets as a form of working class power and as the
   framework of a socialist society. These were the anarchists and the
   Social-Revolutionary Maximalists, both of whom "espoused views that
   corresponded almost word for word with Lenin's April 1917 program of
   'All power to the soviets.'" The "aims of the revolutionary far left in
   1905" Lenin "combined in his call for soviet power [in 1917], when he
   apparently assimilated the anarchist program to secure the support of
   the masses for the Bolsheviks." [Oskar Anweiler, The Soviets, p. 94 and
   p. 96]

   So before 1917, when Lenin claimed to have discovered what had eluded
   all the previous followers of Marx and Engels (including himself!), it
   was only anarchists (or those close to them such as the SR-Maximalists)
   who argued that the future socialist society would be structurally
   based around the organs working class people themselves created in the
   process of the class struggle and revolution. For example, the
   syndicalists "regarded the soviets . . . as admirable versions of the
   bourses du travail, but with a revolutionary function added to suit
   Russian conditions. Open to all leftist workers regardless of specific
   political affiliation, the soviets were to act as nonpartisan labour
   councils improvised 'from below' . . . with the aim of bringing down
   the old regime." The anarchists of Khleb i Volia "also likened the 1905
   Petersburg Soviet - as a non-party mass organisation - to the central
   committee of the Paris Commune of 1871." [Paul Avrich, The Russian
   Anarchists, pp. 80-1] In 1907, it was concluded that the revolution
   required "the proclamation in villages and towns of workers' communes
   with soviets of workers' deputies . . . at their head." [quoted by
   Alexandre Skirda, Facing the Enemy, p. 77] These ideas can be traced
   back to Bakunin, so, ironically, the idea of the superiority of
   workers' councils has existed from around the time of the Paris
   Commune, but only in anarchist theory.

   So, if Marxists did not support workers' councils until 1917, what did
   Marxists argue should be the framework of a socialist society before
   this date? To discover this, we must look to Marx and Engels. Once we
   do, we discover that their works suggest that their vision of socialist
   transformation was fundamentally based on the bourgeois state, suitably
   modified and democratised to achieve this task. As such, rather than
   present the true account of the Marxist theory of the state Lenin
   interpreted various inexact and ambiguous statements by Marx and Engels
   (particularly from Marx's defence of the Paris Commune) to justify his
   own actions in 1917. Whether his 1917 revision of Marxism in favour of
   workers' councils as the means to socialism is in keeping with the
   spirit of Marx is another matter of course. For the Socialist Party of
   Great Britain and its sister parties, Lenin violated both the letter
   and the spirit of Marx and they stress his arguments in favour of
   utilising universal suffrage to introduce socialism (indeed, their
   analysis of Marx and critique of Lenin is substantially the same as the
   one presented here). For the council communists, who embraced the idea
   of workers' councils but broke with the Bolsheviks over the issue of
   whether the councils or the party had power, Lenin's analysis, while
   flawed in parts, is in the general spirit of Marx and they stress the
   need to smash the state and replace it with workers' councils. In this,
   they express the best in Marx. When faced with the Paris Commune and
   its libertarian influences he embraced it, distancing himself (for a
   while at least) with many of his previous ideas.

   So what was the original (orthodox) Marxist position? It can be seen
   from Lenin who, as late December 1916 argued that "Socialists are in
   favour of utilising the present state and its institutions in the
   struggle for the emancipation of the working class, maintaining also
   that the state should be used for a specific form of transition from
   capitalism to socialism." Lenin attacked Bukharin for "erroneously
   ascribing this [the anarchist] view to the socialist" when he had
   stated socialists wanted to "abolish" the state or "blow it up." He
   called this "transitional form" the dictatorship of the proletariat,
   "which is also a state." [Collected Works, vol. 23, p. 165] In other
   words, the socialist party would aim to seize power within the existing
   republican state and, after making suitable modifications to it, use it
   to create socialism.

   That this position was the orthodox one is hardly surprising, given the
   actual comments of both Marx and Engels. For example Engels argued in
   April 1883 while he and Marx saw "the gradual dissolution and ultimate
   disappearance of that political organisation called the State" as "one
   of the final results of the future revolution," they "at the same time
   . . . have always held that . . . the proletarian class will first have
   to possess itself of the organised political force of the State and
   with its aid stamp out the resistance of the Capitalist class and
   re-organise society." The idea that the proletariat needs to "possess"
   the existing state is made clear when he notes that the anarchists
   "reverse the matter" by advocating that the revolution "has to begin by
   abolishing the political organisation of the State." For Marxists "the
   only organisation the victorious working class finds ready-made for
   use, is that of the State. It may require adaptation to the new
   functions. But to destroy that at such a moment, would be to destroy
   the only organism by means of which the working class can exert its
   newly conquered power." [our emphasis, Op. Cit., vol. 47, p. 10]

   Obviously the only institution which the working class "finds
   ready-made for use" is the democratic (i.e., bourgeois) state,
   although, as Engels stressed, it "may require adaptation." In Engels'
   1871 introduction to Marx's "The Civil War in France", this analysis is
   repeated when Engels asserted that the state "is nothing but a machine
   for the oppression of one class by another" and that it is "at best an
   evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for
   class supremacy, whose worst sides the victorious proletariat, just
   like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at once as much as
   possible." [Selected Works, p. 258]

   If the proletariat creates a new state to replace the bourgeois one,
   then how can it be "ready-made for use" and "an evil inherited" by it?
   If, as Lenin argued, Marx and Engels thought that the working class had
   to smash the bourgeois state and replace it with a new one, why would
   it have "to lop off at once as much as possible" from the state it had
   just "inherited"?

   Three years later, Engels made his position clear: "With respect to the
   proletariat the republic differs from the monarchy only in that it is
   the ready-for-use form for the future rule of the proletariat." He went
   on to state that the French socialists "are at an advantage compared to
   us in already having it" and warned against "baseless" illusions such
   as seeking to "entrust socialist tasks to it while it is dominated by
   the bourgeoisie." [Marx and Engels, The Socialist Revolution, p. 296]
   This was, significantly, simply repeating Engels 1891 argument from his
   critique of the draft of the Erfurt program of the German Social
   Democrats:

     "If one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working class
     can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This
     is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat,
     as the Great French Revolution has already shown." [Collected Works,
     vol. 27, p. 227]

   Clearly Engels does not speak of a "commune-republic" or anything close
   to a soviet republic, as expressed in Bakunin's work or the libertarian
   wing of the First International with their ideas of a "trade-union
   republic" or a free federation of workers' associations. Clearly and
   explicitly he speaks of the democratic republic, the current state ("an
   evil inherited by the proletariat") which is to be seized and
   transformed.

   Unsurprisingly, when Lenin came to quote this passage in State and
   Revolution he immediately tried to obscure its meaning. "Engels," he
   wrote, "repeated here in a particularly striking form the fundamental
   idea which runs through all of Marx's work, namely, that the democratic
   republic is the nearest approach to the dictatorship of the
   proletariat." [The Lenin Anthology, p. 360] However, obviously Engels
   did nothing of the kind. He did not speak of the political form which
   "is the nearest approach" to the dictatorship, rather he wrote only of
   "the specific form" of the dictatorship, the "only" form in which "our
   Party" can come to power. Hal Draper, likewise, denied that Engels
   meant what he clearly wrote, arguing that he really meant the Paris
   Commune. "Because of the expression 'great French revolution,'" Draper
   asserted, "the assumption has often been made that Engels meant the
   French Revolution of 1789; but the idea that he, or anyone else, could
   view 1789 (or 1793) as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is too
   absurd to entertain." [The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' from Marx
   to Lenin, p. 37fn]

   Yet, contextually, no evidence exists to support such a claim and what
   does disputes it - Engels discusses French history and makes no mention
   of the Commune but does mention the republic of 1792 to 1799
   (significantly, Lenin makes no attempt to suggest that Engels meant the
   Paris Commune or anything else bar a democratic republic). In fact,
   Engels goes on to argue that "[f]rom 1792 to 1799 each French
   department, each commune, enjoyed complete self-government on the
   American model, and this is what we too must have. How self-government
   is to be organised and how we can manage without a bureaucracy has been
   shown to us by America and the first French Republic." Significantly,
   Engels was explicitly discussing the need for a "republican party
   programme", commenting that it would be impossible for "our best people
   to become ministers" under an Emperor and arguing that, in Germany at
   the time, they could not call for a republic and had to raise the
   "demand for the concentration of all political power in the hands of
   the people's representatives." Engels stressed that "the proletariat
   can only use the form of the one and indivisible republic" with
   "self-government" meaning "officials elected by universal suffrage".
   [Op. Cit., pp. 227-9]

   Clearly, the "assumption" Draper denounced makes more sense than his
   own or Lenin's. This is particularly the case when it is clear that
   both Marx and Engels viewed the French Republic under the Jacobins as a
   situation where the proletariat held political power (although, like
   Marx with the Paris Commune, they do not use the term "dictatorship of
   the proletariat" to describe it). Engels wrote of "the rule of the
   Mountain party" as being "the short time when the proletariat was at
   the helm of the state in the French Revolution" and "from May 31, 1793
   to July 26, 1794 . . . not a single bourgeois dared show his face in
   the whole of France." Marx, similarly, wrote of this period as one in
   which "the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the
   bourgeoisie" but due to the "material conditions" its acts were "in
   service" of the bourgeois revolution. The "bloody action of the people"
   only "prepared the way for" the bourgeoisie by destroying feudalism,
   something which the bourgeoisie was not capable of. [Op. Cit., vol. 6,
   p. 373, p. 5 and p. 319]

   Apparently Engels did not consider it "too absurd to entertain" that
   the French Republic of 1793 was "a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'"
   and, ironically, Draper's "anyone else" turned out to be Marx!
   Moreover, this was well known in Marxist circles long before Draper
   made his assertion. Julius Martov (for example) after quoting Marx on
   this issue summarised that, for Marx and Engels, the "Reign of Terror
   in France was the momentary domination of the democratic petty
   bourgeoisie and the proletariat over all the possessing classes,
   including the authentic bourgeoisie." [The State and Socialist
   Revolution, p. 51]

   Similarly, Lenin quoted Engels on the proletariat seizing "state power"
   and nationalising the means of production, an act by which it
   "abolishes itself as proletariat" and "abolishes the state as state."
   Significantly, it is Lenin who has to write that "Engels speaks here of
   the proletarian revolution 'abolishing' the bourgeois state, while the
   words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the
   proletariat state after the socialist revolution." Yet Engels himself
   makes no such differentiation and talks purely of "the state" and it
   "becom[ing] the real representative of the whole of society" by "taking
   possession of the means of production in the name of society." Perhaps
   Lenin was right and Engels really meant two different states but,
   sadly, he failed to make that point explicitly, so allowing Marxism, to
   use Lenin's words, to be subjected to "the crudest distortion" by its
   followers, "prune[d]" and "reduc[ed] . . . to opportunism." [Op. Cit.,
   pp. 320-2]

   Then there are Engels 1887 comments that in the USA the workers "next
   step towards their deliverance" was "the formation of a political
   workingmen's party, with a platform of its own, and the conquest of the
   Capitol and the White House for its goal." This new party "like all
   political parties everywhere . . . aspires to the conquest of political
   power." Engels then discusses the "electoral battle" going on in
   America. [Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 26, p. 435 and p. 437]
   Significantly, 40 years previously in 1847, Engels had argued that the
   revolution "will establish a democratic constitution, and through this,
   the direct . . . dominance of the proletariat" where "the proletarians
   are already a majority of the people." He noted that "a democratic
   constitution has been introduced" in America. [Op. Cit., vol. 6, p. 350
   and p. 356] The continuity is significant, particularly as these
   identical arguments come before and after the Paris Commune of 1871.

   This was no isolated statement. Engels had argued along the same lines
   (and, likewise, echoed early statements) as regards Britain in 1881,
   "where the industrial and agricultural working class forms the immense
   majority of the people, democracy means the dominion of the working
   class, neither more nor less. Let, then, that working class prepare
   itself for the task in store for it - the ruling of this great Empire .
   . . And the best way to do this is to use the power already in their
   hands, the actual majority they possess . . . to send to Parliament men
   of their own order." In case this was not clear enough, he lamented
   that "[e]verywhere the labourer struggles for political power, for
   direct representation of his class in the legislature - everywhere but
   in Great Britain." [Op. Cit., vol. 24, p. 405] For Engels:

     "In every struggle of class against class, the next end fought for
     is political power; the ruling class defends its political
     supremacy, that is to say its safe majority in the Legislature; the
     inferior class fights for, first a share, then the whole of that
     power, in order to become enabled to change existing laws in
     conformity with their own interests and requirements. Thus the
     working class of Great Britain for years fought ardently and even
     violently for the People's Charter [which demanded universal
     suffrage and yearly general elections], which was to give it that
     political power." [Op. Cit., p. 386]

   The 1st of May, 1893, saw Engels argue that the task of the British
   working class was not only to pursue economic struggles "but above all
   in winning political rights, parliament, through the working class
   organised into an independent party" (significantly, the original
   manuscript stated "but in winning parliament, the political power"). He
   went on to state that the 1892 general election saw the workers give a
   "taste of their power, hitherto unexerted." [Op. Cit., vol. 27, p. 395]
   This, significantly, is in line with his 1870 comment that in Britain
   "the bourgeoisie could only get its real representative . . . into
   government only by extension of the franchise, whose consequences are
   bound to put an end to all bourgeois rule." [Selected Works, p. 238]

   Marx seems to see voting for a government as being the same as
   political power as the "fundamental contradiction" of a democracy under
   capitalism is that the classes "whose social slavery the constitution
   is to perpetuate" it "puts in possession of political power through
   universal suffrage." [Collected Works, vol. 10, p. 79] For Engels in
   1847, "democracy has as its necessary consequence the political rule of
   the proletariat." Universal suffrage would "make political power pass
   from the middle class to the working class" and so "the democratic
   movement" is "striving for the political domination of the
   proletariat." [Op. Cit., vol. 7, p. 299, p. 440 and p. 368] As noted in
   [78]section H.3.9, Marx concluded that Bonaparte's coup ended the
   political power of the bourgeoisie and, for Engels, "the whole
   bourgeoisie ruled, but for three years only" during the Second French
   Republic of 1848-51. Significantly, during the previous regime of
   Louis-Philippe (1830-48) "a very small portion of the bourgeois ruled
   the kingdom" as "by far the larger part were excluded from the suffrage
   by high [property] qualifications." [Op. Cit., vol. 27, p. 297]

   All of which, of course, fits into Marx's account of the Paris Commune
   where, as noted above, the Commune "was formed of the municipal
   councillors" who had been "chosen by universal suffrage in the various
   wards of the town" in the municipal elections held on March 26th, 1871.
   Once voted into office, the Commune then smashed the state machine
   inherited by it, recognising that "the working class cannot simply lay
   hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own
   purposes." The "first decree of the Commune . . . was the suppression
   of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people."
   Thus the Commune lops off one of the "ubiquitous organs" associated
   with the "centralised State power" once it had inherited the state via
   elections. [Selected Works, p. 287, p. 285, p. 287 and p. 285] Indeed,
   this is precisely what was meant, as confirmed by Engels in a letter
   written in 1884 clarifying what Marx meant:

     "It is simply a question of showing that the victorious proletariat
     must first refashion the old bureaucratic, administrative
     centralised state power before it can use it for its own purposes:
     whereas all bourgeois republicans since 1848 inveighed against this
     machinery so long as they were in the opposition, but once they were
     in the government they took it over without altering it and used it
     partly against the reaction but still more against the proletariat."
     [Collected Works, vol. 47, p. 74]

   Interestingly, in the second outline of the Civil War in France, Marx
   used words almost identical to Engels latter explanation:

     "But the proletariat cannot, as the ruling classes and their
     different rival fractions have done in the successive hours of their
     triumph, simply lay hold on the existent State body and wield this
     ready-made agency for their own purpose. The first condition for the
     holding of political power, is to transform its working machinery
     and destroy it as an instrument of class rule." [our emphasis,
     Collected Works, vol. 22, p. 533]

   It is, of course, true that Marx expressed in his defence of the
   Commune the opinion that new "Communal Constitution" was to become a
   "reality by the destruction of the State power" yet he immediately
   argues that "the merely repressive organs of the old government power
   were to be amputated" and "its legitimate functions were to be wrestles
   from" it and "restored to the responsible agents of society." [Selected
   Works, pp. 288-9] This corresponds to Engels arguments about removing
   aspects from the state inherited by the proletariat and signifies the
   "destruction" of the state machinery (its bureaucratic-military
   aspects) rather than the republic itself.

   In other words, Lenin was right to state that "Marx's idea is that the
   working class must break up, smash the 'ready-made state machinery,'
   and not confine itself to merely laying hold of it." This was never
   denied by thinkers like Karl Kautsky, rather they stressed that for
   Marx and Engels universal suffrage was the means by which political
   power would be seized (at least in a republic) while violent revolution
   would be the means to create a republic and to defend it against
   attempts to restore the old order. As Engels put it in 1886, Marx had
   drawn "the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only
   country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected
   entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add
   that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a
   'pro-slavery rebellion,' to this peaceful and legal revolution."
   ["Preface to the English edition" in Marx, Capital, vol. 1, p. 113]
   Thus Kautsky stressed that the abolition of the standing army was
   "absolutely necessary if the state is to be able to carry out
   significant social reforms" once the party of the proletariat was in a
   position to "control legislation." This would mean "the most complete
   democracy, a militia system" after, echoing the Communist Manifesto,
   "the conquest of democracy" had been achieved. [The Road to Power, p.
   69, p. 70 and p. 72]

   Essentially, then, Lenin was utilising a confusion between smashing the
   state and smashing the state machine once the workers' party had
   achieved a majority within a democratic republic. In other words, Lenin
   was wrong to assert that "this lesson . . . had not only been
   completely ignored, but positively distorted by the prevailing,
   Kautskyite, 'interpretation' of Marxism." As we have proved "the false
   notion that universal suffrage 'in the present-day state' is really
   capable of revealing the will of the majority of the working people and
   of securing its realisation" was not invented by the "petty-bourgeois
   democrats" nor "the social-chauvinists and opportunists." It can be
   found repeatedly in the works of Engels and Marx themselves and so
   "Engels's perfectly clear, concise and concrete statement is distorted
   at every step" not only "at every step in the propaganda and agitation
   of the 'official' (i.e., opportunist) socialist parties" but also by
   Engels himself! [Op. Cit. p. 336 and pp. 319-20]

   Significantly, we find Marx recounting in 1852 how the "executive power
   with its enormous bureaucratic and military organisation, with its
   wide-ranging and ingenious state machinery . . . sprang up in the days
   of the absolute monarchy, with the decay of the feudal system which it
   had helped to hasten." After 1848, "in its struggle against the
   revolution, the parliamentary republic found itself compelled to
   strengthen, along with the repressive, the resources and centralisation
   of governmental power. All revolutions perfected this machine instead
   of smashing it. The parties that contended in turn for domination
   regarded the possession of this huge state edifice as the principal
   spoils of the victor." However, "under the absolute monarchy, during
   the first Revolution, under Napoleon, bureaucracy was only the means of
   preparing the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Under the Restoration,
   under Louis Philippe, under the parliamentary republic, it was the
   instrument of the ruling class, however much it strove for power of its
   own." It was "[o]nly under the second Bonaparte does the state seem to
   have made itself completely independent." [Selected Works, pp. 169-70]

   This analysis is repeated in The Civil War in France, except the
   expression "the State power" is used as an equivalent to the "state
   machinery." Again, the state machine/power is portrayed as coming into
   existence before the republic: "The centralised state power, with its
   ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and
   judicature . . . originates from the days of absolute monarchy." Again,
   the "bourgeois republicans . . . took the state power" and used it to
   repress the working class. Again, Marx called for "the destruction of
   the state power" and noted that the Commune abolished the standing
   army, the privileged role of the clergy, and so on. The Commune's "very
   existence presupposed the non-existence of monarchy, which, in Europe
   at least, is the normal encumbrance and indispensable cloak of class
   rule. It supplied the republic with the basis of really democratic
   institutions." [Op. Cit. p. 285, p. 286, p. 288 and p. 290]

   Obviously, then, what the socialist revolution had to smash existed
   before the republican state was created and was an inheritance of
   pre-bourgeois rule (even if the bourgeoisie utilised it for its own
   ends). How this machine was to be smashed was left unspecified but
   given that it was not identical to the "parliamentary republic" Marx's
   arguments cannot be taken as evidence that the democratic state needed
   to be smashed or destroyed rather than seized by means of universal
   suffrage (and reformed appropriately, by "smashing" the "state
   machinery" as well as including recall of representatives and the
   combining of administrative and legislative tasks into their hands).
   Clearly, Lenin's attempt to equate the "parliamentary republic" with
   the "state machinery" cannot be supported in Marx's account. At best,
   it could be argued that it is the spirit of Marx's analysis, perhaps
   bringing it up to date. However, this was not Lenin's position (he
   maintained that social democracy had hidden Marx's clear call to smash
   the bourgeois democratic state).

   Unsurprisingly, Lenin does not discuss the numerous quotes by Marx and
   Engels on this matter which clearly contradict his thesis. Nor mention
   that in 1871, a few months after the Commune, Marx argued that in
   Britain, "the way to show [i.e., manifest] political power lies open to
   the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful
   agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work." [Collected Works,
   vol. 22, p. 602] The following year, saw him suggest that America could
   join it as "the workers can achieve their aims by peaceful means" there
   as well [Op. Cit., vol. 23, p. 255] How if Marx had concluded that the
   capitalist state had to be destroyed rather than captured and
   refashioned then he quickly changed his mind! In fact, during the
   Commune itself, in April 1871, Marx had written to his friend Ludwig
   Kugelman "[i]f you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire
   you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution
   will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic military
   machine from one hand to another, but to break it, and that is
   essential for every real peoples revolution on the Continent. And this
   is what our heroic Party [sic!] comrades in Paris are attempting." [Op.
   Cit., vol. 44, p. 131] As noted above, Marx explicitly noted that the
   bureaucratic military machine predated the republic and was, in effect,
   inherited by it.

   Lenin did note that Marx "restricts his conclusion to the Continent" on
   the issue of smashing the state machine, but does not list an obvious
   factor, that the UK approximated universal suffrage, in why this was
   the case (thus Lenin did not note that Engels, in 1891, added
   "democratic republics like France" to the list of states where "the old
   society may peacefully evolve into the new." [Op. Cit., vol. 27, p.
   226]). In 1917, Lenin argued, "this restriction" was "no longer valid"
   as both Britain and America had "completely sunk into the all-European
   filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions." [Op.
   Cit., pp. 336-7] Subsequently, he repeated this claim in his polemic
   against Karl Kautsky, stating that notions that reforming the state
   were now out of date because of "the existence of militarism and a
   bureaucracy" which "were non-existent in Britain and America" in the
   1870s. He pointed to how "the most democratic and republican
   bourgeoisie in America . . . deal with workers on strike" as further
   proof of his position. [Collected Works, vol. 28, p. 238 and p. 244]
   However, this does not impact on the question of whether universal
   suffrage could be utilised in order to be in a position to smash this
   state machine or not. Equally, Lenin failed to acknowledge the violent
   repression of strikes in the 1870s and 1880s in America (such as the
   Great Upheaval of 1877 or the crushing of the 8 hour day movement after
   the Haymarket police riot of 1886). As Martov argued correctly:

     "The theoretic possibility [of peaceful reform] has not revealed
     itself in reality. But the sole fact that he admitted such a
     possibility shows us clearly Marxs opinion, leaving no room for
     arbitrary interpretation. What Marx designated as the 'destruction
     of the State machine' . . . was the destruction of the military and
     bureaucratic apparatus that the bourgeois democracy had inherited
     from the monarchy and perfected in the process of consolidating the
     rule of the bourgeois class. There is nothing in Marxs reasoning
     that even suggests the destruction of the State organisation as such
     and the replacement of the State during the revolutionary period,
     that is during the dictatorship of the proletariat, with a social
     bond formed on a principle opposed to that of the State. Marx and
     Engels foresaw such a substitution only at the end of a process of
     'a progressive withering away' of the State and all the functions of
     social coercion. They foresaw this atrophy of the State and the
     functions of social coercion to be the result of the prolonged
     existence of the socialist regime." [Op. Cit., p. 31]

   It should also be remembered that Marx's comments on smashing the state
   machine were made in response to developments in France, a regime that
   Marx and Engels viewed as not being purely bourgeois. Marx notes in his
   account of the Commune how, in France, "[p]eculiar historical
   circumstances" had "prevented the classical development . . . of the
   bourgeois form of government." [Selected Works, p. 289] For Engels,
   Proudhon "confuses the French Bureaucratic government with the normal
   state of a bourgeoisie that rules both itself and the proletariat."
   [Collected Works, vol. 11, p. 548] In the 1870s, Marx considered
   Holland, Britain and the USA to have "the genuine capitalist state."
   [Op. Cit., vol. 24, p. 499] Significantly, it was precisely these
   states in which Marx had previously stated a peaceful revolution could
   occur:

     "We know that the institutions, customs and traditions in the
     different countries must be taken into account; and we do not deny
     the existence of countries like America, England, and if I knew your
     institutions better I might add Holland, where the workers may
     achieve their aims by peaceful means. That being the true, we must
     admit that in most countries on the continent it is force which must
     be the lever of our revolution; it is force which will have to be
     resorted to for a time in order to establish the rule of the
     workers." [Op. Cit., vol. 23, p. 255]

   Interestingly, in 1886, Engels expanded on Marx's speculation as
   regards Holland and confirmed it. Holland, he argued, as well as "a
   residue of local and provincial self-government" also had "an absence
   of any real bureaucracy in the French or Prussian sense" because, alone
   in Western Europe, it did not have an "absolute monarchy" between the
   16th and 18th century. This meant that "only a few changes will have to
   be made to establish that free self-government by the working [people]
   which will necessarily be our best tool in the organisation of the mode
   of production." [Op. Cit., vol. 47, pp. 397-8] Few would argue that
   smashing the state and its replacement with a new workers' one would
   really constitute a "few changes"! However, Engels position does fit in
   with the notion that the "state machine" to be smashed is a legacy of
   absolute monarchy rather than the state structure of a bourgeois
   democratic republic. It also shows the nature of a Marxist revolution
   in a republic, in a "genuine capitalist state" of the type Marx and
   Engels expected to be the result of the first stage of any revolt.

   The source of Lenin's restatement of the Marxist theory of the state
   which came as such a shock to so many Marxists can be found in the
   nature of the Paris Commune. After all, the major influence in terms of
   "political vision" of the Commune was anarchism. The "rough sketch of
   national organisation which the Commune had no time to develop" which
   Marx praises but does not quote was written by a follower of Proudhon.
   [Selected Works, p. 288] It expounded a clearly federalist and
   "bottom-up" organisational structure. It clearly implied "the
   destruction of the State power" rather than seeking to "inherit" it.
   Based on this libertarian revolt, it is unsurprising that Marx's
   defence of it took on a libertarian twist. As noted by Bakunin, who
   argued that its "general effect was so striking that the Marxists
   themselves, who saw their ideas upset by the uprising, found themselves
   compelled to take their hats off to it. They went further, and
   proclaimed that its programme and purpose where their own, in face of
   the simplest logic . . . This was a truly farcical change of costume,
   but they were bound to make it, for fear of being overtaken and left
   behind in the wave of feeling which the rising produced throughout the
   world." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 261]

   The nature of The Civil War in France and the circumstances in which it
   was written explains why. Marx, while publicly opposing any kind of
   revolt before hand, did support the Commune once it began. His essay is
   primarily a propaganda piece in defence of it and is, fundamentally,
   reporting on what the Commune actually did and advocated. Thus, as well
   as reporting the Communal Constitution's vision of a federation of
   communes, we find Marx noting, also without comment, that Commune
   decreed "the surrender to associations of workmen, under reserve of
   compensation, of all closed workshops and factories." [Op. Cit., p.
   294] While Engels, at times, suggested that this could be a possible
   policy for a socialist government, it is fair to say that few Marxists
   consider Marx's reporting of this particular aspect of the Commune as
   being a key aspect of his ideology. As Marx's account reports on the
   facts of the Commune it could hardly not reflect the libertarian ideas
   which were so strong in both it and the French sections of the
   International - ideas he had spent much time and energy opposing.
   Moreover, given the frenzy of abuse the Communards were subject to it
   by the bourgeoisie, it was unlikely that Marx would have aided the
   reaction by being overly critical. Equally, given how positively the
   Commune had been received in working class and radical circles Marx
   would have been keen to gain maximum benefit from it for both the
   International and his own ideology and influence. This would also have
   ensured that Marx kept his criticisms quiet, particularly as he was
   writing on behalf of an organisation which was not Marxist and included
   various different socialist tendencies.

   This means that to fully understand Marx and Engels, we need to look at
   all their writings, before and after the Paris Commune. It is,
   therefore, significant that immediately after the Commune Marx stated
   that workers could achieve socialism by utilising existing democratic
   states and that the labour movement should take part in political
   action and send workers to Parliament. There is no mention of a
   federation of communes in these proposals and they reflect ideas both
   he and Engels had expressed since the 1840s. Ten years after the
   Commune, Marx stated that it was "merely an uprising of one city in
   exceptional circumstances. [Collected Works, vol. 46, p. 66] Similarly,
   a mere 3 years after the Commune, Engels argued that the key thing in
   Britain was "to form anew a strong workers' party with a definite
   programme, and the best political programme they could wish for was the
   People's Charter." [Op. Cit., vol. 23, p. 614] The Commune was not
   mentioned and, significantly, Marx had previously defined this
   programme in 1855 as being "to increase and extend the omnipotence of
   Parliament by elevating it to peoples power. They [the Chartists] are
   not breaking up parliamentarism but are raising it to a higher power."
   [Op. Cit., vol. 14, p. 243]

   As such, Marx's defence of the Commune should not mean ignoring the
   whole body of his and Engels work, nor should Marx's conclusion that
   the "state machinery" must be smashed in a successful revolution be
   considered to be in contradiction with his comments on utilising the
   existing democratic republic. It does, however, suggest that Marx's
   reporting of the Proudhon-influenced ideas of the Communards cannot be
   taken as a definitive account of his ideas on social transformation.

   The fact that Marx did not mention anything about abolishing the
   existing state and replacing it with a new one in his contribution to
   the "Program of the French Workers Party" in 1880 is significant. It
   said that the "collective appropriation" of the means of production
   "can only proceed from a revolutionary action of the class of producers
   - the proletariat - organised in an independent political party." This
   would be "pursued by all the means the proletariat has at its disposal
   including universal suffrage which will thus be transformed from the
   instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument
   of emancipation." [Op. Cit., vol. 24, p. 340] There is nothing about
   overthrowing the existing state and replacing it with a new state,
   rather the obvious conclusion which is to be drawn is that universal
   suffrage was the tool by which the workers would achieve socialism. It
   does fit in, however, with Marx's repeated comments that universal
   suffrage was the equivalent of political power for the working class
   where the proletariat was the majority of the population. Or, indeed,
   Engels numerous similar comments. It explains the repeated suggestion
   by Marx that there were countries like America and Britain "where the
   workers can achieve their aims by peaceful means." There is Engels:

     "One can imagine that the old society could peacefully grow into the
     new in countries where all power is concentrated in the people's
     representatives, where one can constitutionally do as one pleases as
     soon as a majority of the people give their support; in democratic
     republics like France and America, in monarchies such as England,
     where the dynasty is powerless against the popular will. But in
     Germany, where the government is virtually all-powerful and the
     Reichstag and other representative bodies are without real power, to
     proclaim likewise in Germany . . . is to accept the fig leaf of
     absolutism and to bind oneself to it." [Op. Cit., vol. 27, p. 226]

   This, significantly, repeats Marx's comments in an unpublished article
   from 1878 on the Reichstag debates on the anti-socialist laws where, in
   part, he suggested that "[i]f in England . . . or the United States,
   the working class were to gain a majority in Parliament or Congress,
   they could by lawful means, rid themselves of such laws and
   institutions as impeded their development . . . However, the 'peaceful'
   movement might be transformed into a 'forcible' one by resistance on
   the part of those interested in restoring the former state of affairs;
   if . . . they are put down by force, it is as rebels against 'lawful'
   force." [Op. Cit., vol. 24, p. 248] Sadly, he never finished and
   published it but it is in line with many of his public pronouncements
   on this subject.

   Marx also excluded countries on the European mainland (with the
   possible exception of Holland) from his suggestions of peaceful reform.
   In those countries, presumably, the first stage of the revolution would
   be, as stressed in the Communist Manifesto, creating a fully democratic
   republic ("to win the battle for democracy" - see [79]section H.1.1).
   As Engels put it, "the first and direct result of the revolution with
   regard to the form can and must be nothing but the bourgeois republic.
   But this will be here only a brief transitional period . . . The
   bourgeois republic . . . will enable us to win over the great masses of
   the workers to revolutionary socialism . . . Only them can we
   successfully take over." The "proletariat can only use the form of the
   one and indivisible republic" for it is "the sole political form in
   which the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie can be
   fought to a finish." [Marx and Engels, The Socialist Revolution, p.
   265, p. 283 and p. 294] As he summarised:

     "Marx and I, for forty years, repeated ad nauseam that for us the
     democratic republic is the only political form in which the struggle
     between the working class and the capitalist class can first be
     universalised and then culminate in the decisive victory of the
     proletariat." [Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 271]

   It is for these reasons that orthodox Marxism up until 1917 held the
   position that the socialist revolution would be commenced by seizing
   the existing state (usually by the ballot box, or by insurrection if
   that was impossible). Martov in his discussion of Lenin's "discovery"
   of the "real" Marxist theory on the state (in State and Revolution)
   stressed that the idea that the state should be smashed by the workers
   who would then "transplant into the structure of society the forms of
   their own combat organisations" was a libertarian idea, alien to Marx
   and Engels. While acknowledging that "in our time, working people take
   to 'the idea of the soviets' after knowing them as combat organisations
   formed in the process of the class struggle at a sharp revolutionary
   stage," he distanced Marx and Engels quite successfully from such a
   position. [Op. Cit., p. 42] As such, he makes a valid contribution to
   Marxism and presents a necessary counter-argument to Lenin's claims (at
   which point, we are sure, nine out of ten Leninists will dismiss our
   argument regardless of how well it explains apparent contradictions in
   Marx and Engels or how much evidence can be presented in support of
   it!).

   This position should not be confused with a totally reformist position,
   as social-democracy became. Marx and Engels were well aware that a
   revolution would be needed to create and defend a republic. Engels, for
   example, noted "how totally mistaken is the belief that a republic, and
   not only a republic, but also a communist society, can be established
   in a cosy, peaceful way." Thus violent revolution was required to
   create a republic - Marx and Engels were revolutionaries, after all.
   Within a republic, both recognised that insurrection would be required
   to defend democratic government against attempts by the capitalist
   class to maintain its economic position. Universal suffrage was, to
   quote Engels, "a splendid weapon" which, while "slower and more boring
   than the call to revolution", was "ten times more sure and what is even
   better, it indicates with the most perfect accuracy the day when a call
   to armed revolution has to be made." This was because it was "even ten
   to one that universal suffrage, intelligently used by the workers, will
   drive the rulers to overthrow legality, that is, to put us in the most
   favourable position to make revolution." "The big mistake", Engels
   argued, was "to think that the revolution is something that can be made
   overnight. As a matter of fact it is a process of development of the
   masses that takes several years even under conditions accelerating this
   process." Thus it was a case of, "as a revolutionary, any means which
   leads to the goal is suitable, including the most violent and the most
   pacific." [Marx and Engels, The Socialist Revolution, p. 283, p. 189,
   p. 265 and p. 274] However, over time and as social democratic parties
   and universal suffrage spread, the emphasis did change from
   insurrection (the Communist Manifesto's "violent overthrow of the
   bourgeoisie") to Engels last pronouncement that "the conditions of
   struggle had essentially changed. Rebellion in the old style, street
   fighting with barricades . . . , was to a considerable extent
   obsolete." [Selected Works, p. 45 and pp. 653-4]

   Obviously, neither Marx nor Engels (unlike Bakunin, significantly) saw
   the rise of reformism which usually made this need for the ruling class
   to "overthrow legality" redundant. Nor, for that matter, did they see
   the effect of economic power in controlling workers parties once in
   office. Sure, armed coups have taken place to overthrow even slightly
   reformist governments but, thanks to the use of "political action", the
   working class was in no position to "make revolution" in response. Not,
   of course, that these have been required in most republics as utilising
   Marxist methods have made many radical parties so reformist that the
   capitalists can easily tolerate their taking office or can utilise
   economic and bureaucratic pressures to control them.

   So far from arguing, as Lenin suggested, for the destruction of the
   capitalist state, Marx and Engels consistently advocated the use of
   universal suffrage to gain control over the state, control which then
   would be used to smash or shatter the "state machine." Revolution would
   be required to create a republic and to defend it against reaction, but
   the key was the utilisation of political action to take political power
   within a democratic state. The closest that Marx or Engels came to
   advocating workers councils was in 1850 when Marx suggested that the
   German workers "establish their own revolutionary workers' governments"
   alongside of the "new official governments". These could be of two
   forms, either of "municipal committees and municipal councils" or
   "workers' clubs or workers' committees." There is no mention of how
   these would be organised but their aim would be to supervise and
   threaten the official governments "by authorities backed by the whole
   mass of the workers." These clubs would be "centralised". In addition,
   "workers candidates are [to be] put up alongside of the
   bourgeois-democratic candidates" to "preserve their independence".
   (although this "independence" meant taking part in bourgeois
   institutions so that "the demands of the workers must everywhere be
   governed by the concessions and measures of the democrats."). [The
   Marx-Engels Reader, p. 507, p. 508 and p. 510] So while these "workers'
   committees" could, in theory, be elected from the workplace Marx made
   no mention of this possibility (talk of "municipal councils" suggests
   that such a possibility was alien to him). It also should be noted that
   Marx was echoing Proudhon who, the year before, had argued that the
   clubs "had to be organised. The organisation of popular societies was
   the fulcrum of democracy, the corner-stone of the republican order."
   [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 48] So, as with the soviets, even the
   idea of workers' clubs as a means of ensuring mass participation was
   first raised by anarchists (although, of course, inspired by working
   class self-organisation during the 1848 French revolution).

   All this may seem a bit academic to many. Does it matter? After all,
   most Marxists today subscribe to some variation of Lenin's position and
   so, in some aspects, what Marx and Engels really thought is irrelevant.
   Indeed, it is possible that Marx faced with workers' councils, as he
   was with the Commune, would have embraced them (perhaps not, as he was
   dismissive of similar ideas expressed in the libertarian wing of the
   First International). After all, the Mensheviks used Marx's 1850s
   arguments to support their activities in the soviets in 1905 (while the
   Bolshevik's expressed hostility to both the policy and the soviets)
   and, of course, there is nothing in them to exclude such a position.
   What is important is that the idea that Marxists have always subscribed
   to the idea that a social revolution would be based on the workers' own
   combat organisations (be they unions, soviets or whatever) is a
   relatively new one to the ideology. If, as John Rees asserts, "the
   socialist revolution must counterpoise the soviet to parliament . . .
   precisely because it needs an organ which combines economic power - the
   power to strike and take control of the workplaces - with an
   insurrectionary bid for political power" and "breaking the old state"
   then the ironic thing is that it was Bakunin, not Marx, who advocated
   such a position. [Op. Cit., p. 25] Given this, the shock which met
   Lenin's arguments in 1917 can be easily understood.

   Rather than being rooted in the Marxist vision of revolution, as it has
   been in anarchism since at least the 1860s, workers councils have
   played, rhetoric aside, the role of fig-leaf for party power
   (libertarian Marxism being a notable exception). They have been
   embraced by its Leninist wing purely as a means of ensuring party
   power. Rather than being seen as the most important gain of a
   revolution as they allow mass participation, workers' councils have
   been seen, and used, simply as a means by which the party can seize
   power. Once this is achieved, the soviets can be marginalised and
   ignored without affecting the "proletarian" nature of the revolution in
   the eyes of the party:

     "while it is true that Lenin recognised the different functions and
     democratic raison d'tre for both the soviets and his party, in the
     last analysis it was the party that was more important than the
     soviets. In other words, the party was the final repository of
     working-class sovereignty. Thus, Lenin did not seem to have been
     reflected on or have been particularly perturbed by the decline of
     the soviets after 1918." [Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, p. 212]

   This perspective can be traced back to the lack of interest Marx and
   Engels expressed in the forms which a proletarian revolution would
   take, as exemplified by Engels comments on having to "lop off" aspects
   of the state "inherited" by the working class. The idea that the
   organisations people create in their struggle for freedom may help
   determine the outcome of the revolution is missing. Rather, the idea
   that any structure can be appropriated and (after suitable
   modification) used to rebuild society is clear. This cannot but flow
   from the flawed Marxist theory of the state we discussed in [80]section
   H.3.7. If, as Marx and Engels argued, the state is simply an instrument
   of class rule then it becomes unproblematic to utilise the existing
   republican state or create a new form of state complete with
   representative structures. The Marxist perspective, moreover, cannot
   help take emphasis away from the mass working class organisations
   required to rebuild society in a socialist manner and place it on the
   group who will "inherit" the state and "lop off" its negative aspects,
   namely the party and the leaders in charge of both it and the new
   "workers' state."

   This focus towards the party became, under Lenin (and the Bolsheviks in
   general) a purely instrumental perspective on workers' councils and
   other organisations. They were of use purely in so far as they allowed
   the Bolshevik party to take power (indeed Lenin constantly identified
   workers' power and soviet power with Bolshevik power and as Martin
   Buber noted, for Lenin "All power to the Soviets!" meant, at bottom,
   "All power to the Party through the Soviets!"). It can, therefore, be
   argued that his book State and Revolution was a means to use Marx and
   Engels to support his new found idea of the soviets as being the basis
   of creating a Bolshevik government rather than a principled defence of
   workers' councils as the framework of a socialist revolution. We
   discuss this issue in the [81]next section.

H.3.11 Does Marxism aim to give power to workers organisations?

   The short answer depends on which branch of Marxism you mean.

   If you are talking about libertarian Marxists such as council
   communists, Situationists and so on, then the answer is a resounding
   "yes." Like anarchists, these Marxists see a social revolution as being
   based on working class self-management and, indeed, criticised (and
   broke with) Bolshevism precisely on this question. Some Marxists, like
   the Socialist Party of Great Britain, stay true to Marx and Engels and
   argue for using the ballot box (see [82]last section) although this not
   exclude utilising such organs once political power is seized by those
   means. However, if we look at the mainstream Marxist tradition (namely
   Leninism), the answer has to be an empathic "no."

   As we noted in [83]section H.1.4, anarchists have long argued that the
   organisations created by the working class in struggle would be the
   initial framework of a free society. These organs, created to resist
   capitalism and the state, would be the means to overthrow both as well
   as extending and defending the revolution (such bodies have included
   the "soviets" and "factory committees" of the Russian Revolution, the
   collectives in the Spanish revolution, popular assemblies of the 2001
   Argentine revolt against neo-liberalism and the French Revolution,
   revolutionary unions and so on). Thus working class self-management is
   at the core of the anarchist vision and so we stress the importance
   (and autonomy) of working class organisations in the revolutionary
   movement and the revolution itself. Anarchists work within such bodies
   at the base, in the mass assemblies, and do not seek to replace their
   power with that of their own organisation (see [84]section J.3.6).

   Leninists, in contrast, have a different perspective on such bodies.
   Rather than placing them at the heart of the revolution, Leninism views
   them purely in instrumental terms - namely, as a means of achieving
   party power. Writing in 1907, Lenin argued that "Social-Democratic
   Party organisations may, in case of necessity, participate in
   inter-party Soviets of Workers' Delegates . . . and in congresses . . .
   of these organisations, and may organise such institutions, provided
   this is done on strict Party lines for the purpose of developing and
   strengthening the Social-Democratic Labour Party", that is "utilise"
   such organs "for the purpose of developing the Social-Democratic
   movement." Significantly, given the fate of the soviets post-1917,
   Lenin noted that the party "must bear in mind that if Social-Democratic
   activities among the proletarian masses are properly, effectively and
   widely organised, such institutions may actually become superfluous."
   [Collected Works, vol. 12, pp. 143-4] Thus the means by which working
   class can manage their own affairs would become "superfluous" once the
   party was in power. How the working class could be considered the
   "ruling class" in such a society is hard to understand.

   As Oscar Anweiler summarises in his account of the soviets during the
   two Russian Revolutions:

     "The drawback of the new 'soviet democracy' hailed by Lenin in 1906
     is that he could envisage the soviets only as controlled
     organisations; for him they were instruments by which the party
     controlled the working masses, rather than true forms of a workers
     democracy. The basic contradiction of the Bolshevik soviet system -
     which purports to be a democracy of all working people but in
     reality recognises only the rule of one party - is already contained
     in Lenin's interpretation of the soviets during the first Russian
     revolution." [The Soviets, p. 85]

   Thirteen years later, Lenin repeated this same vision of party power as
   the goal of revolution in his infamous diatribe against "Left-wing"
   Communism (i.e. those Marxists close to anarchism) as we noted in
   [85]section H.3.3. The Bolsheviks had, by this stage, explicitly argued
   for party dictatorship and considered it a truism that the whole
   proletariat could not rule nor could the proletarian dictatorship be
   exercised by a mass working class organisation. Therefore, rather than
   seeing revolution being based upon the empowerment of working class
   organisation and the socialist society being based on this, Leninists
   see workers organisations in purely instrumental terms as the means of
   achieving a Leninist government:

     "With all the idealised glorification of the soviets as a new,
     higher, and more democratic type of state, Lenin's principal aim was
     revolutionary-strategic rather than social-structural . . . The
     slogan of the soviets was primarily tactical in nature; the soviets
     were in theory organs of mass democracy, but in practice tools for
     the Bolshevik Party. In 1917 Lenin outlined his transitional utopia
     without naming the definitive factor: the party. To understand the
     soviets' true place in Bolshevism, it is not enough, therefore, to
     accept the idealised picture in Lenin's state theory. Only an
     examination of the actual give-and-take between Bolsheviks and
     soviets during the revolution allows a correct understanding of
     their relationship." [Oscar Anweiler, Op. Cit., pp. 160-1]

   Simply out, Leninism confuses the party power and workers' power. An
   example of this "confusion" can be found in most Leninist works. For
   example, John Rees argues that "the essence of the Bolsheviks' strategy
   . . . was to take power from the Provisional government and put it in
   the hands of popular organs of working class power - a point later made
   explicit by Trotsky in his Lessons of October." ["In Defence of
   October", pp. 3-82, International Socialism, no. 52, p. 73] However, in
   reality Lenin had always been clear that the essence of the Bolsheviks'
   strategy was the taking of power by the Bolshevik party itself. He
   explicitly argued for Bolshevik power during 1917, considering the
   soviets as the best means of achieving this. He constantly equated
   Bolshevik rule with working class rule. Once in power, this
   identification did not change. As such, rather than argue for power to
   be placed into "the hands of popular organs of working class power"
   Lenin argued this only insofar as he was sure that these organs would
   then immediately pass that power into the hands of a Bolshevik
   government.

   This explains his turn against the soviets after July 1917 when he
   considered it impossible for the Bolsheviks to gain a majority in them.
   It can be seen when the Bolshevik party's Central Committee opposed the
   idea of a coalition government immediately after the overthrow of the
   Provisional Government in October 1917. As it explained, "a purely
   Bolshevik government" was "impossible to refuse" since "a majority at
   the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets . . . handed power over to
   this government." [quoted by Robert V. Daniels, A Documentary History
   of Communism, pp. 127-8] A mere ten days after the October Revolution
   the Left Social Revolutionaries charged that the Bolshevik government
   was ignoring the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets,
   established by the second Congress of Soviets as the supreme organ in
   society. Lenin dismissed their charges, stating that "the new power
   could not take into account, in its activity, all the rigmarole which
   would set it on the road of the meticulous observation of all the
   formalities." [quoted by Frederick I. Kaplan, Bolshevik Ideology and
   the Ethics of Soviet Labour, p. 124] Clearly, the soviets did not have
   "All Power," they promptly handed it over to a Bolshevik government
   (and Lenin implies that he was not bound in any way to the supreme
   organ of the soviets in whose name he ruled). All of which places Rees'
   assertions into the proper context and shows that the slogan "All Power
   to the Soviets" is used by Leninists in a radically different way than
   most people would understand by it! It also explains why soviets were
   disbanded if the opposition won majorities in them in early 1918 (see
   [86]section H.6.1). The Bolsheviks only supported "Soviet power" when
   the soviets were Bolshevik. As was recognised by leading left-Menshevik
   Julius Martov, who argued that the Bolsheviks loved Soviets only when
   they were "in the hands of the Bolshevik party." [quoted by Israel
   Getzler, Op. Cit., p. 174] Which explains Lenin's comment that "[o]nly
   the development of this war [Kornilov's counter-revolutionary rebellion
   in August 1917] can bring us to power but we must speak of this as
   little as possible in our agitation (remembering very well that even
   tomorrow events may put us in power and then we will not let it go)."
   [quoted by Neil Harding, Leninism, p. 253]

   All this can be confirmed, unsurprisingly enough, by looking at the
   essay Rees references. When studying Trotsky's work we find the same
   instrumentalist approach to the question of the "popular organs of
   working class power." Yes, there is some discussion on whether soviets
   or "some of form of organisation" like factory committees could become
   "organs of state power" but this is always within the context of party
   power. This is stated quite clearly by Trotsky in his essay when he
   argued that the "essential aspect" of Bolshevism was the "training,
   tempering, and organisation of the proletarian vanguard as enables the
   latter to seize power, arms in hand." [Lessons of October, p. 167 and
   p. 127] As such, the vanguard seizes power, not "popular organs of
   working class power." Indeed, the idea that the working class can seize
   power itself is raised and dismissed:

     "But the events have proved that without a party capable of
     directing the proletarian revolution, the revolution itself is
     rendered impossible. The proletariat cannot seize power by a
     spontaneous uprising . . . there is nothing else that can serve the
     proletariat as a substitute for its own party." [Op. Cit., p. 117]

   Hence soviets were not considered as the "essence" of Bolshevism,
   rather the "fundamental instrument of proletarian revolution is the
   party." Popular organs are seen purely in instrumental terms, with such
   organs of "workers' power" discussed in terms of the strategy and
   program of the party not in terms of the value that such organs have as
   forms of working class self-management of society. Why should he, when
   "the task of the Communist party is the conquest of power for the
   purpose of reconstructing society"? [Op. Cit., p. 118 and p. 174]

   This can be clearly seen from Trotsky's discussion of the "October
   Revolution" of 1917 in Lessons of October. Commenting on the Bolshevik
   Party conference of April 1917, he stated that the "whole of . . .
   [the] Conference was devoted to the following fundamental question: Are
   we heading toward the conquest of power in the name of the socialist
   revolution or are we helping (anybody and everybody) to complete the
   democratic revolution? . . . Lenin's position was this: . . . the
   capture of the soviet majority; the overthrow of the Provisional
   Government; the seizure of power through the soviets." [Op. Cit., p.
   134] Note, through the soviets not by the soviets, thus showing that
   the Party would hold the real power, not the soviets of workers'
   delegates. This is confirmed when Trotsky stated that "to prepare the
   insurrection and to carry it out under cover of preparing for the
   Second Soviet Congress and under the slogan of defending it, was of
   inestimable advantage to us" and that it was "one thing to prepare an
   armed insurrection under the naked slogan of the seizure of power by
   the party, and quite another thing to prepare and then carry out an
   insurrection under the slogan of defending the rights of the Congress
   of Soviets." The Soviet Congress just provided "the legal cover" for
   the Bolshevik plans. [Op. Cit., p. 134, p. 158 and p. 161]

   Thus we have the "seizure of power through the soviets" with "an armed
   insurrection" for "the seizure of power by the party" being hidden by
   "the slogan" ("the legal cover") of defending the Soviets! Hardly a
   case of placing power in the hands of working class organisations.
   Trotsky did note that in 1917 the "soviets had to either disappear
   entirely or take real power into their hands." However, he immediately
   added that "they could take power . . . only as the dictatorship of the
   proletariat directed by a single party." [Op. Cit., p. 126] Clearly,
   the "single party" has the real power, not the soviets an
   unsurprisingly the rule of "a single party" also amounted to the
   soviets effectively disappearing as they quickly became mere ciphers
   it. Soon the "direction" by "a single party" became the dictatorship of
   that party over the soviets, which (it should be noted) Trotsky
   defended wholeheartedly when he wrote Lessons of October (and, indeed,
   into the 1930s).

   This cannot be considered as a one-off. Trotsky repeated this analysis
   in his History of the Russian Revolution, when he stated that the
   "question, what mass organisations were to serve the party for
   leadership in the insurrection, did not permit an a priori, much less a
   categorical, answer." Thus the "mass organisations" serve the party,
   not vice versa. This instrumentalist perspective can be seen when
   Trotsky noted that when "the Bolsheviks got a majority in the Petrograd
   Soviet, and afterward a number of others," the "phrase 'Power to the
   Soviets' was not, therefore, again removed from the order of the day,
   but received a new meaning: All power to the Bolshevik soviets." This
   meant that the "party was launched on the road of armed insurrection
   through the soviets and in the name of the soviets." As he put it in
   his discussion of the July days in 1917, the army "was far from ready
   to raise an insurrection in order to give power to the Bolshevik Party"
   and so "the state of popular consciousness . . . made impossible the
   seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in July." [vol. 2, p. 303, p. 307,
   p. 78 and p. 81] So much for "all power to the Soviets"! He even quotes
   Lenin: "The Bolsheviks have no right to await the Congress of Soviets.
   They ought to seize the power right now." Ultimately, the "Central
   Committee adopted the motion of Lenin as the only thinkable one: to
   form a government of the Bolsheviks only." [vol. 3, pp. 131-2 and p.
   299]

   So where does this leave the assertion that the Bolsheviks aimed to put
   power into the hands of working class organisations? Clearly, Rees'
   summary of both Trotsky's essay and the "essence" of Bolshevism leave a
   lot to be desired. As can be seen, the "essence" of Trotsky's essay and
   of Bolshevism is the importance of party power, not workers' power (as
   recognised by another member of the SWP: "The masses needed to be
   profoundly convinced that there was no alternative to Bolshevik power."
   [Tony Cliff, Lenin, vol. 2, p. 265]). Trotsky even provided us with an
   analogy which effectively and simply refutes Rees' claims. "Just as the
   blacksmith cannot seize the red hot iron in his naked hand," Trotsky
   asserted, "so the proletariat cannot directly seize power; it has to
   have an organisation accommodated to this task." While paying lip
   service to the soviets as the organisation "by means of which the
   proletariat can both overthrow the old power and replace it," he added
   that "the soviets by themselves do not settle the question" as they may
   "serve different goals according to the programme and leadership. The
   soviets receive their programme from the party . . . the revolutionary
   party represents the brain of the class. The problem of conquering the
   power can be solved only by a definite combination of party with
   soviets." [The History of the Russian Revolution, vol. 3, pp. 160-1 and
   p. 163]

   Thus the key organisation was the party, not the mass organisations of
   the working class. Indeed, Trotsky was quite explicit that such
   organisations could only become the state form of the proletariat under
   the party dictatorship. Significantly, Trotsky fails to indicate what
   would happen when these two powers clash. Certainly Trotsky's role in
   the Russian revolution tells us that the power of the party was more
   important to him than democratic control by workers through mass bodies
   and as we have shown in [87]section H.3.8, Trotsky explicitly argued
   that a state was required to overcome the "wavering" in the working
   class which could be expressed by democratic decision making.

   Given this legacy of viewing workers' organisations in purely
   instrumental terms, the opinion of Martov (the leading left-Menshevik
   during the Russian Revolution) seems appropriate. He argued that "[a]t
   the moment when the revolutionary masses expressed their emancipation
   from the centuries old yoke of the old State by forming 'autonomous
   republics of Kronstadt' and trying Anarchist experiments such as
   'workers' control,' etc. - at that moment, the 'dictatorship of the
   proletariat and the poorest peasantry' (said to be incarnated in the
   real dictatorship of the opposed 'true' interpreters of the proletariat
   and the poorest peasantry: the chosen of Bolshevist Communism) could
   only consolidate itself by first dressing itself in such Anarchist and
   anti-State ideology." [The State and Socialist Revolution, p. 47] As
   can be seen, Martov had a point. As the text used as evidence that the
   Bolsheviks aimed to give power to workers organisations shows, this was
   not an aim of the Bolshevik party. Rather, such workers organs were
   seen purely as a means to the end of party power.

   In contrast, anarchists argue for direct working class self-management
   of society. When we argue that working class organisations must be the
   framework of a free society we mean it. We do not equate party power
   with working class power or think that "All power to the Soviets" is
   possible if they immediately delegate that power to the leaders of the
   party. This is for obvious reasons:

     "If the revolutionary means are out of their hands, if they are in
     the hands of a techno-bureaucratic elite, then such an elite will be
     in a position to direct to their own benefit not only the course of
     the revolution, but the future society as well. If the proletariat
     are to ensure that an elite will not control the future society,
     they must prevent them from controlling the course of the
     revolution." [Alan Carter, Marx: A Radical Critique, p. 165]

   Thus the slogan "All power to the Soviets" for anarchists means exactly
   that - organs for the working class to run society directly, based on
   mandated, recallable delegates. This slogan fitted perfectly with our
   ideas, as anarchists had been arguing since the 1860's that such
   workers' councils were both a weapon of class struggle against
   capitalism and the framework of the future libertarian society. For the
   Bolshevik tradition, that slogan simply means that a Bolshevik
   government will be formed over and above the soviets. The difference is
   important, "for the Anarchists declared, if 'power' really should
   belong to the soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik party, and
   if it should belong to that Party, as the Bolsheviks envisaged, it
   could not belong to the soviets." [Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p.
   213] Reducing the soviets to simply executing the decrees of the
   central (Bolshevik) government and having their All-Russian Congress be
   able to recall the government (i.e. those with real power) does not
   equal "all power," quite the reverse - the soviets will simply be a
   fig-leaf for party power.

   In summary, rather than aim to place power into the hands of workers'
   organisations, most Marxists do not. Their aim is to place power into
   the hands of the party. Workers' organisations are simply means to this
   end and, as the Bolshevik regime showed, if they clash with that goal,
   they will be simply be disbanded. However, we must stress that not all
   Marxist tendencies subscribe to this. The council communists, for
   example, broke with the Bolsheviks precisely over this issue, the
   difference between party and class power.

H.3.12 Is big business the precondition for socialism?

   A key idea in most forms of Marxism is that the evolution of capitalism
   itself will create the preconditions for socialism. This is because
   capitalism tends to result in big business and, correspondingly,
   increased numbers of workers subject to the "socialised" production
   process within the workplace. The conflict between the socialised means
   of production and their private ownership is at the heart of the
   Marxist case for socialism:

     "Then came the concentration of the means of production and of the
     producers in large workshops and manufactories, their transformation
     into actual socialised means of production and socialised producers.
     But the socialised producers and means of production and their
     products were still treated, after this change, just as they had
     been before . . . the owner of the instruments of labour . . .
     appropriated to himself . . . exclusively the product of the labour
     of others. Thus, the products now produced socially were not
     appropriated by those who actually set in motion the means of
     production and actually produced the commodities, but by the
     capitalists . . . The mode of production is subjected to this
     [individual or private] form of appropriation, although it abolishes
     the conditions upon which the latter rests.

     "This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its
     capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social
     antagonisms of today."
     [Engels, Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 703-4]

   It is the business cycle of capitalism which show this contradiction
   between socialised production and capitalist appropriation the best.
   Indeed, the "fact that the socialised organisation of production within
   the factory has developed so far that it has become incompatible with
   the anarchy of production in society, which exists side by side with
   and dominates it, is brought home to the capitalists themselves by the
   violent concentration of capital that occurs during crises." The
   pressures of socialised production results in capitalists merging their
   properties "in a particular branch of industry in a particular country"
   into "a trust, a union for the purpose of regulating production." In
   this way, "the production of capitalistic society capitulates to the
   production upon a definite plan of the invading socialistic society."
   This "transformation" can take the form of "joint-stock companies and
   trusts, or into state ownership." The later does not change the
   "capitalist relation" although it does have "concealed within it" the
   "technical conditions that form the elements of that solution." This
   "shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat
   seizes political power and turns the means of production into state
   property." [Op. Cit., p. 709, p. 710, p. 711, p. 712 and p. 713]

   Thus the centralisation and concentration of production into bigger and
   bigger units, into big business, is seen as the evidence of the need
   for socialism. It provides the objective grounding for socialism, and,
   in fact, this analysis is what makes Marxism "scientific socialism."
   This process explains how human society develops through time:

     "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite
     relations that are indispensable and independent of their will,
     relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of
     development of their material productive forces. The sum total of
     these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of
     society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political
     superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social
     consciousness . . . At a certain stage of their development, the
     material productive forces come in conflict with the existing
     relations of production or - what is but a legal expression for the
     same thing - with the property relations within which they have been
     at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces
     these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of
     social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the
     entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed."
     [Marx, Op. Cit., pp. 4-5]

   The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that socialism will
   come about due to tendencies inherent within the development of
   capitalism. The "socialisation" implied by collective labour within a
   firm grows steadily as capitalist companies grow larger and larger. The
   objective need for socialism is therefore created and so, for most
   Marxists, "big is beautiful." Indeed, some Leninists have invented
   terminology to describe this, which can be traced back to at least as
   far as Bolshevik (and Left Oppositionist) Evgeny Preobrazhensky
   (although his perspective, like most Leninist ones, has deep roots in
   the Social Democratic orthodoxy of the Second International).
   Preobrazhensky, as well as expounding the need for "primitive socialist
   accumulation" to build up Soviet Russia's industry, also discussed "the
   contradiction of the law of planning and the law of value." [Hillel
   Ticktin, "Leon Trotsky and the Social Forces Leading to Bureaucracy,
   1923-29", pp. 45-64, The Ideas of Leon Trotsky, Hillel Ticktin and
   Michael Cox (eds.), p. 45] Thus Marxists in this tradition (like Hillel
   Ticktin) argue that the increased size of capital means that more and
   more of the economy is subject to the despotism of the owners and
   managers of capital and so the "anarchy" of the market is slowly
   replaced with the conscious planning of resources. Marxists sometimes
   call this the "objective socialisation of labour" (to use Ernest
   Mandel's term). Thus there is a tendency for Marxists to see the
   increased size and power of big business as providing objective
   evidence for socialism, which will bring these socialistic tendencies
   within capitalism to full light and full development. Needless to say,
   most will argue that socialism, while developing planning fully, will
   replace the autocratic and hierarchical planning of big business with
   democratic, society-wide planning.

   This position, for anarchists, has certain problems associated with it.
   One key drawback, as we discuss in the [88]next section, is it focuses
   attention away from the internal organisation within the workplace onto
   ownership and links between economic units. It ends up confusing
   capitalism with the market relations between firms rather than
   identifying it with its essence, wage slavery. This meant that many
   Marxists consider that the basis of a socialist economy was guaranteed
   once property was nationalised. This perspective tends to dismiss as
   irrelevant the way production is managed. The anarchist critique that
   this simply replaced a multitude of bosses with one, the state, was
   (and is) ignored. Rather than seeing socialism as being dependent on
   workers' management of production, this position ends up seeing
   socialism as being dependent on organisational links between
   workplaces, as exemplified by big business under capitalism. Thus the
   "relations of production" which matter are not those associated with
   wage labour but rather those associated with the market. This can be
   seen from the famous comment in The Manifesto of the Communist Party
   that the bourgeoisie "cannot exist without constantly revolutionising
   the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production,
   and with them the whole relations of society." [Marx and Engels, Op.
   Cit., p. 476] But the one relation of production it cannot
   revolutionise is the one generated by the wage labour at the heart of
   capitalism, the hierarchical relations at the point of production. As
   such, it is clear that by "relations of production" Marx and Engels
   meant something else than wage slavery, namely, the internal
   organisation of what they term "socialised production."

   Capitalism is, in general, as dynamic as Marx and Engels stressed. It
   transforms the means of production, the structure of industry and the
   links between workplaces constantly. Yet it only modifies the form of
   the organisation of labour, not its content. No matter how it
   transforms machinery and the internal structure of companies, the
   workers are still wage slaves. At best, it simply transforms much of
   the hierarchy which governs the workforce into hired managers. This
   does not transform the fundamental social relationship of capitalism,
   however and so the "relations of production" which prefigure socialism
   are, precisely, those associated with the "socialisation of the labour
   process" which occurs within capitalism and are no way antagonistic to
   it.

   This mirrors Marx's famous prediction that the capitalist mode of
   production produces "the centralisation of capitals" as one capitalist
   "always strikes down many others." This leads to "the further
   socialisation of labour and the further transformation of the soil and
   other means of production into socially exploited and therefore
   communal means of production takes on a new form." Thus capitalist
   progress itself objectively produces the necessity for socialism as it
   socialises the production process and produces a working class
   "constantly increasing in numbers, and trained, united and organised by
   the very mechanism of the capitalist process of production. The
   monopolisation of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production
   . . . The centralisation of the means of production and the
   socialisation of labour reach a point at which they become incompatible
   with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The
   knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are
   expropriated." [Capital, vol. 1, pp. 928-9] Note, it is not the workers
   who organise themselves but rather they are "organised by the very
   mechanism of the capitalist process of production." Even in his most
   libertarian work, "The Civil War in France", this perspective can be
   found. He, rightly, praised attempts by the Communards to set up
   co-operatives (although distinctly failed to mention Proudhon's obvious
   influence) but then went on to argue that the working class had "no
   ready-made utopias to introduce" and that "to work out their own
   emancipation, and along with it that that higher form to which present
   society is irresistibly tending by its own economical agencies" they
   simply had "to set free the elements of the new society with which old
   collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant." [Marx-Engels Reader,
   pp. 635-6]

   Then we have Marx, in his polemic against Proudhon, arguing that social
   relations "are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring
   new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in
   changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their
   living, they change their social relations. The hand-mill gives you
   society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the
   industrial capitalist." [Collected Works, vol. 6, p. 166] On the face
   of it, this had better not be true. After all, the aim of socialism is
   to expropriate the property of the industrial capitalist. If the social
   relationships are dependent on the productive forces then, clearly,
   socialism is impossible as it will have to be based, initially, on the
   legacy of capitalism. Fortunately, the way a workplace is managed is
   not predetermined by the technological base of society. As is obvious,
   a steam-mill can be operated by a co-operative, so making the
   industrial capitalist redundant. That a given technological basis (or
   productive forces) can produces many different social and political
   systems can easily be seen from history. Murray Bookchin gives one
   example:

     "Technics . . . does not fully or even adequately account for the
     institutional differences between a fairly democratic federation
     such as the Iroquois and a highly despotic empire such as the Inca.
     From a strictly instrumental viewpoint, the two structures were
     supported by almost identical 'tool kits.' Both engaged in
     horticultural practices that were organised around primitive
     implements and wooden hoes. Their weaving and metalworking
     techniques were very similar . . . At the community level, Iroquois
     and Inca populations were immensely similar . . .

     "Yet at the political level of social life, a democratic confederal
     structure of five woodland tribes obviously differs decisively from
     a centralised, despotic structure of mountain Indian chiefdoms. The
     former, a highly libertarian confederation . . . The latter, a
     massively authoritarian state . . . Communal management of resources
     and produce among the Iroquois tribes occurred at the clan level. By
     contrast, Inca resources were largely state-owned, and much of the
     empire's produce was simply confiscation . . . and their
     redistribution from central and local storehouses. The Iroquois
     worked together freely . . . the Inca peasantry provided corvee
     labour to a patently exploitative priesthood and state apparatus
     under a nearly industrial system of management."
     [The Ecology of Freedom, pp. 331-2]

   Marx's claim that a given technological level implies a specific social
   structure is wrong. However, it does suggest that our comments that,
   for Marx and Engels, the new "social relationships" which develop under
   capitalism which imply socialism are relations between workplaces, not
   those between individuals and so classes are correct. The implications
   of this position became clear during the Russian revolution.

   Later Marxists built upon this "scientific" groundwork. Lenin, for
   example, argued that "the difference between a socialist revolution and
   a bourgeois revolution is that in the latter case there are ready made
   forms of capitalist relationships; Soviet power [in Russia] does not
   inherit such ready made relationships, if we leave out of account the
   most developed forms of capitalism, which, strictly speaking, extended
   to a small top layer of industry and hardly touched agriculture."
   [Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 90] Thus, for Lenin, "socialist"
   relationships are generated within big business, relationships
   "socialism" would "inherit" and universalise. As such, his comments fit
   in with the analysis of Marx and Engels we have presented above.
   However, his comments also reveal that Lenin had no idea that socialism
   meant the transformation of the relations of production, i.e. workers
   managing their own activity. This, undoubtedly, explains the systematic
   undermining of the factory committee movement by the Bolsheviks in
   favour of state control (see Maurice Brinton's classic account of this
   process, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control).

   The idea that socialism involved simply taking over the state and
   nationalising the "objectively socialised" means of production can be
   seen in both mainstream social-democracy and its Leninist child. Rudolf
   Hilferding argued that capitalism was evolving into a highly
   centralised economy, run by big banks and big firms. All what was
   required to turn this into socialism would be its nationalisation:

     "Once finance capital has brought the most important branches of
     production under its control, it is enough for society, through its
     conscious executive organ - the state conquered by the working class
     - to seize finance capital in order to gain immediate control of
     these branches of production . . . taking possession of six large
     Berlin banks would . . . greatly facilitate the initial phases of
     socialist policy during the transition period, when capitalist
     accounting might still prove useful." [Finance Capital, pp. 367-8]

   Lenin basically disagreed with this only in-so-far as the party of the
   proletariat would take power via revolution rather than by election
   ("the state conquered by the working class" equals the election of a
   socialist party). Lenin took it for granted that the difference between
   Marxists and anarchists is that "the former stand for centralised,
   large-scale communist production, while the latter stand for
   disconnected small production." [Collected Works, vol. 23, p. 325] The
   obvious implication of this is that anarchist views "express, not the
   future of bourgeois society, which is striving with irresistible force
   towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past
   of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and
   isolated small producer." [Op. Cit., vol. 10, p. 73]

   Lenin applied this perspective during the Russian Revolution. For
   example, he argued in 1917 that his immediate aim was for a "state
   capitalist" economy, this being a necessary stage to socialism. As he
   put it, "socialism is merely the next step forward from
   state-capitalist monopoly . . . socialism is merely state-capitalist
   monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and
   has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly." [Op. Cit., vol.
   25, p. 358] The Bolshevik road to "socialism" ran through the terrain
   of state capitalism and, in fact, simply built upon its
   institutionalised means of allocating recourses and structuring
   industry. As Lenin put it, "the modern state possesses an apparatus
   which has extremely close connections with the banks and syndicates
   [i.e., trusts] , an apparatus which performs an enormous amount of
   accounting and registration work . . . This apparatus must not, and
   should not, be smashed. It must be wrestled from the control of the
   capitalists," it "must be subordinated to the proletarian Soviets" and
   "it must be expanded, made more comprehensive, and nation-wide." This
   meant that the Bolsheviks would "not invent the organisational form of
   work, but take it ready-made from capitalism" and "borrow the best
   models furnished by the advanced countries." [Op. Cit., vol. 26, pp.
   105-6 and p. 110]

   The institutional framework of capitalism would be utilised as the
   principal (almost exclusive) instruments of "socialist" transformation.
   "Without big banks Socialism would be impossible," argued Lenin, as
   they "are the 'state apparatus' which we need to bring about socialism,
   and which we take ready-made from capitalism; our task here is merely
   to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to
   make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive. A
   single State Bank, the biggest of the big . . . will constitute as much
   as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. This will be country-wide
   book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and
   distribution of goods." While this is "not fully a state apparatus
   under capitalism," it "will be so with us, under socialism." For Lenin,
   building socialism was easy. This "nine-tenths of the socialist
   apparatus" would be created "at one stroke, by a single decree." [Op.
   Cit., p. 106] Once in power, the Bolsheviks implemented this vision of
   socialism being built upon the institutions created by monopoly
   capitalism. Moreover, Lenin quickly started to advocate and implement
   the most sophisticated capitalist methods of organising labour,
   including "one-man management" of production, piece-rates and Taylorism
   ("scientific management"). This was not done accidentally or because no
   alternative existed (as we discuss in [89]section H.6.2, workers were
   organising federations of factory committees which could have been, as
   anarchists argued at the time, the basis of a genuine socialist
   economy).

   As Gustav Landuer commented, when mainstream Marxists "call the
   capitalist factory system a social production . . . we know the real
   implications of their socialist forms of labour." [For Socialism, p.
   70] As can be seen, this glorification of large-scale, state-capitalist
   structures can be traced back to Marx and Engels, while Lenin's support
   for capitalist production techniques can be explained by mainstream
   Marxism's lack of focus on the social relationships at the point of
   production.

   For anarchists, the idea that socialism can be built on the framework
   provided to us by capitalism is simply ridiculous. Capitalism has
   developed industry and technology to further the ends of those with
   power, namely capitalists and managers. Why should they use that power
   to develop technology and industrial structures which lead to workers'
   self-management and power rather than technologies and structures which
   enhance their own position vis--vis their workers and society as a
   whole? As such, technological and industrial development is not
   "neutral" or just the "application of science." They are shaped by
   class struggle and class interest and cannot be used for different
   ends. Simply put, socialism will need to develop new forms of economic
   organisation based on socialist principles. The concept that monopoly
   capitalism paves the way for socialist society is rooted in the false
   assumption that the forms of social organisation accompanying capital
   concentration are identical with the socialisation of production, that
   the structures associated with collective labour under capitalism are
   the same as those required under socialism is achieve genuine
   socialisation. This false assumption, as can be seen, goes back to
   Engels and was shared by both Social Democracy and Leninism despite
   their other differences.

   While anarchists are inspired by a vision of a non-capitalist,
   decentralised, diverse society based on appropriate technology and
   appropriate scale, mainstream Marxism is not. Rather, it sees the
   problem with capitalism is that its institutions are not centralised
   and big enough. As Alexander Berkman correctly argues:

     "The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution is
     unfortunately too little appreciated. . . Most people are still in
     the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that centralisation is 'more
     efficient and economical.' They close their eyes to the fact that
     the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the cost of the workers' limb
     and life, that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere industrial
     cog, deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in a system of
     centralisation the administration of industry becomes constantly
     merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of
     industrial overlords. It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the
     revolution were to aim at such a result. It would mean the creation
     of a new master class." [What is Anarchism?, p. 229]

   That mainstream Marxism is soaked in capitalist ideology can be seen
   from Lenin's comments that when "the separate establishments are
   amalgamated into a single syndicate, this economy [of production] can
   attain tremendous proportions, as economic science teaches us." [Op.
   Cit., vol. 25, p. 344] Yes, capitalist economic science, based on
   capitalist definitions of efficiency and economy and on capitalist
   criteria! That Bolshevism bases itself on centralised, large scale
   industry because it is more "efficient" and "economic" suggests nothing
   less than that its "socialism" will be based on the same priorities of
   capitalism. This can be seen from Lenin's idea that Russia had to learn
   from the advanced capitalist countries, that there was only one way to
   develop production and that was by adopting capitalist methods of
   "rationalisation" and management. Thus, for Lenin in early 1918 "our
   task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no
   effort in copying it and not to shrink from adopting dictorial methods
   to hasten the copying of it." [Op. Cit., vol. 27, p. 340] In the words
   of Luigi Fabbri:

     "Marxist communists, especially Russian ones, are beguiled by the
     distant mirage of big industry in the West or America and mistake
     for a system of production what is only a typically capitalist means
     of speculation, a means of exercising oppression all the more
     securely; and they do not appreciate that that sort of
     centralisation, far from fulfilling the real needs of production,
     is, on the contrary, precisely what restricts it, obstructs it and
     applies a brake to it in the interests of capital.

     "Whenever [they] talk about 'necessity of production' they make no
     distinction between those necessities upon which hinge the
     procurement of a greater quantity and higher quality of products -
     this being all that matters from the social and communist point of
     view - and the necessities inherent in the bourgeois regime, the
     capitalists' necessity to make more profit even should it mean
     producing less to do so. If capitalism tends to centralise its
     operations, it does so not for the sake of production, but only for
     the sake of making and accumulating more money."
     ["Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", pp. 13-49, The Poverty of
     Statism, Albert Meltzer (ed.), pp. 21-22]

   Efficiency, in other words, does not exist independently of a given
   society or economy. What is considered "efficient" under capitalism may
   be the worse form of inefficiency in a free society. The idea that
   socialism may have different priorities, need different methods of
   organising production, have different visions of how an economy was
   structured than capitalism, is absent in mainstream Marxism. Lenin
   thought that the institutions of bourgeois economic power, industrial
   structure and capitalist technology and techniques could be "captured"
   and used for other ends. Ultimately, though, capitalist means and
   organisations can only generate capitalist ends. It is significant that
   the "one-man management," piece-work, Taylorism, etc. advocated and
   implemented under Lenin are usually listed by his followers as evils of
   Stalinism and as proof of its anti-socialist nature.

   Equally, it can be argued that part of the reason why large capitalist
   firms can "plan" production on a large scale is because they reduce the
   decision making criteria to a few variables, the most significant being
   profit and loss. That such simplification of input data may result in
   decisions which harm people and the environment goes without a saying.
   "The lack of context and particularity," James C. Scott correctly
   notes, "is not an oversight; it is the necessary first premise of any
   large-scale planning exercise. To the degree that the subjects can be
   treated as standardised units, the power of resolution in the planning
   exercise is enhanced. Questions posed within these strict confines can
   have definitive, quantitative answers. The same logic applies to the
   transformation of the natural world. Questions about the volume of
   commercial wood or the yield of wheat in bushels permit more precise
   calculations than questions about, say, the quality of the soil, the
   versatility and taste of the grain, or the well-being of the community.
   The discipline of economics achieves its formidable resolving power by
   transforming what might otherwise be considered qualitative matters
   into quantitative issues with a single metric and, as it were, a bottom
   line: profit or loss." [Seeing like a State, p. 346] Whether a
   socialist society could factor in all the important inputs which
   capitalism ignores within an even more centralised planning structure
   is an important question. It is extremely doubtful that there could be
   a positive answer to it. This does not mean, we just stress, that
   anarchists argue exclusively for "small-scale" production as many
   Marxists, like Lenin, assert (as we prove in [90]section I.3.8,
   anarchists have always argued for appropriate levels of production and
   scale). It is simply to raise the possibility of what works under
   capitalism may be undesirable from a perspective which values people
   and planet instead of power and profit.

   As should be obvious, anarchism is based on critical evaluation of
   technology and industrial structure, rejecting the whole capitalist
   notion of "progress" which has always been part of justifying the
   inhumanities of the status quo. Just because something is rewarded by
   capitalism it does not mean that it makes sense from a human or
   ecological perspective. This informs our vision of a free society and
   the current struggle. We have long argued that 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, between those who direct and those
   who execute.

   It goes without saying that anarchists recognise that a social
   revolution will have to start with the industry and technology which is
   left to it by capitalism and that this will have to be expropriated by
   the working class (this expropriation will, of course, involve
   transforming it and, in all likelihood, rejecting of numerous
   technologies, techniques and practices considered as "efficient" under
   capitalism). This is not the issue. The issue is who expropriates it
   and what happens to it next. For anarchists, the means of life are
   expropriated directly by society, for most Marxists they are
   expropriated by the state. For anarchists, such expropriation is based
   workers' self-management and so the fundamental capitalist "relation of
   production" (wage labour) is abolished. For most Marxists, state
   ownership of production is considered sufficient to ensure the end of
   capitalism (with, if we are lucky, some form of "workers' control" over
   those state officials who do management production - see [91]section
   H.3.14).

   In contrast to the mainstream Marxist vision of socialism being based
   around the institutions inherited from capitalism, anarchists have
   raised the idea that the "free commune" would be the "medium in which
   the ideas of modern Socialism may come to realisation." These "communes
   would federate" into wider groupings. Labour unions (or other working
   class organs created in the class struggle such as factory committees)
   were "not only an instrument for the improvement of the conditions of
   labour, but also . . . an organisation which might . . . take into its
   hands the management of production." Large labour associations would
   "come into existence for the inter-communal service[s]." Such communes
   and workers' organisations as the basis of "Socialist forms of life
   could find a much easier realisation" than the "seizure of all
   industrial property by the State, and the State organisation of
   agriculture and industry." Thus railway networks "could be much better
   handled by a Federated Union of railway employees, than by a State
   organisation." Combined with co-operation "both for production and for
   distribution, both in industry and agriculture," workers'
   self-management of production would create "samples of the bricks" of
   the future society ("even samples of some of its rooms"). [Kropotkin,
   The Conquest of Bread, pp. 21-23]

   This means that anarchists also root our arguments for socialism in a
   scientific analysis of tendencies within capitalism. However, in
   opposition to the analysis of mainstream Marxism which focuses on the
   objective tendencies within capitalist development, anarchists emphasis
   the oppositional nature of socialism to capitalism. Both the "law of
   value" and the "law of planning" are tendencies within capitalism, that
   is aspects of capitalism. Anarchists encourage class struggle, the
   direct conflict of working class people against the workings of all
   capitalism's "laws". This struggle produces mutual aid and the
   awareness that we can care best for our own welfare if we unite with
   others - what we can loosely term the "law of co-operation" or "law of
   mutual aid". This law, in contrast to the Marxian "law of planning" is
   based on working class subjectively and develops within society only in
   opposition to capitalism. As such, it provides the necessary
   understanding of where socialism will come from, from below, in the
   spontaneous self-activity of the oppressed fighting for their freedom.
   This means that the basic structures of socialism will be the organs
   created by working class people in their struggles against exploitation
   and oppress (see [92]section I.2.3 for more details). Gustav Landauer's
   basic insight is correct (if his means were not totally so) when he
   wrote that "Socialism will not grow out of capitalism but away from it"
   [Op. Cit., p. 140] In other words, tendencies opposed to capitalism
   rather than ones which are part and parcel of it.

   Anarchism's recognition of the importance of these tendencies towards
   mutual aid within capitalism is a key to understanding what anarchists
   do in the here and now, as will be discussed in [93]section J. In
   addition, it also laid the foundation of understanding the nature of an
   anarchist society and what creates the framework of such a society in
   the here and now. Anarchists do not abstractly place a better society
   (anarchy) against the current, oppressive one. Instead, we analysis
   what tendencies exist within current society and encourage those which
   empower and liberate people. Based on these tendencies, anarchists
   propose a society which develops them to their logical conclusion.
   Therefore an anarchist society is created not through the developments
   within capitalism, but in social struggle against it.

H.3.13 Why is state socialism just state capitalism?

   For anarchists, the idea that socialism can be achieved via state
   ownership is simply ridiculous. For reasons which will become
   abundantly clear, anarchists argue that any such "socialist" system
   would simply be a form of "state capitalism." Such a regime would not
   fundamentally change the position of the working class, whose members
   would simply be wage slaves to the state bureaucracy rather than to the
   capitalist class. Marxism would, as Kropotkin predicted, be "the
   worship of the State, of authority and of State Socialism, which is in
   reality nothing but State capitalism." [quoted by Ruth Kinna,
   "Kropotkin's theory of Mutual Aid in Historical Context", pp. 259-283,
   International Review of Social History, No. 40, p. 262]

   However, before beginning our discussion of why anarchists think this
   we need to clarify our terminology. This is because the expression
   "state capitalism" has three distinct, if related, meanings in
   socialist (particularly Marxist) thought. Firstly, "state capitalism"
   was/is used to describe the current system of big business subject to
   extensive state control (particularly if, as in war, the capitalist
   state accrues extensive powers over industry). Secondly, it was used by
   Lenin to describe his immediate aims after the October Revolution,
   namely a regime in which the capitalists would remain but would be
   subject to a system of state control inherited by the new "proletarian"
   state from the old capitalist one. The third use of the term is to
   signify a regime in which the state replaces the capitalist class
   totally via nationalisation of the means of production. In such a
   regime, the state would own, manage and accumulate capital rather than
   individual capitalists.

   Anarchists are opposed to all three systems described by the term
   "state capitalism." Here we concentrate on the third definition,
   arguing that state socialism would be better described as "state
   capitalism" as state ownership of the means of life does not get to the
   heart of capitalism, namely wage labour. Rather it simply replaces
   private bosses with the state and changes the form of property (from
   private to state property) rather than getting rid of it.

   The idea that socialism simply equals state ownership (nationalisation)
   is easy to find in the works of Marxism. The Communist Manifesto, for
   example, states that the "proletariat will use its political supremacy
   to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise
   all instruments of production into the hands of the State." This meant
   the "[c]entralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of
   a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly," the
   "[c]entralisation of the means of communication and transport in the
   hands of the State," "[e]xtension of factories and instruments of
   production owned by the State" and the "[e]stablishment of industrial
   armies, especially for agriculture." [Marx and Engels, Selected Works,
   pp. 52-3] Thus "feudal estates . . . mines, pits, and so forth, would
   become property of the state" as well as "[a]ll means of transport,"
   with "the running of large-scale industry and the railways by the
   state." [Collected Works, vol. 7, p. 3, p. 4 and p. 299]

   Engels repeats this formula thirty-two years later in Socialism:
   Utopian and Scientific by asserting that capitalism itself "forces on
   more and more the transformation of the vast means of production,
   already socialised, into state property. The proletariat seizes
   political power and turns the means of production into state property."
   Socialism is not equated with state ownership of productive forces by a
   capitalist state, "but concealed within it are the technical conditions
   that form the elements of that solution" to the social problem. It
   simply "shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The
   proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production
   into state property." Thus state ownership after the proletariat seizes
   power is the basis of socialism, when by this "first act" of the
   revolution the state "really constitutes itself as the representative
   of the whole of society." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 713, p. 712 and p.
   713]

   What is significant from these programmatic statements on the first
   steps of socialism is the total non-discussion of what is happening at
   the point of production, the non-discussion of the social relations in
   the workplace. Rather we are subjected to discussion of "the
   contradiction between socialised production and capitalist
   appropriation" and claims that while there is "socialised organisation
   of production within the factory," this has become "incompatible with
   the anarchy of production in society." The obvious conclusion to be
   drawn is that "socialism" will inherit, without change, the
   "socialised" workplace of capitalism and that the fundamental change is
   that of ownership: "The proletariat seized the public power, and by
   means of this transforms the socialised means of production . . . into
   public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of
   production from the character of capital they have thus far borne."
   [Engels, Op. Cit., p. 709 and p. 717]

   That the Marxist movement came to see state ownership rather than
   workers' management of production as the key issue is hardly
   surprising. Thus we find leading Social-Democrats arguing that
   socialism basically meant the state, under Social-Democratic control of
   course, acquiring the means of production and nationalising them.
   Rudolf Hilferding presented what was Marxist orthodoxy at the time when
   he argued that in "a communist society" production "is consciously
   determined by the social central organ," which would decide "what is to
   be produced and how much, where and by whom." While this information is
   determined by the market forces under capitalism, in socialism it "is
   given to the members of the socialist society by their authorities . .
   . we must derive the undisturbed progress of the socialist economy from
   the laws, ordinances and regulations of socialist authorities." [quoted
   by Nikolai Bukharin, Economy Theory of the Leisure Class, p. 157] The
   Bolsheviks inherited this concept of "socialism" and implemented it,
   with terrible results.

   This vision of society in which the lives of the population are
   controlled by "authorities" in a "social central organ" which tells the
   workers what to do, while in line with the Communist Manifesto, seems
   less that appealing. It also shows why state socialism is not socialism
   at all. Thus George Barrett:

     "If instead of the present capitalist class there were a set of
     officials appointed by the Government and set in a position to
     control our factories, it would bring about no revolutionary change.
     The officials would have to be paid, and we may depend that, in
     their privileged positions, they would expect good remuneration. The
     politicians would have to be paid, and we already know their tastes.
     You would, in fact, have a non-productive class dictating to the
     producers the conditions upon which they were allowed to use the
     means of production. As this is exactly what is wrong with the
     present system of society, we can see that State control would be no
     remedy, while it would bring with it a host of new troubles . . .
     under a governmental system of society, whether it is the capitalism
     of today or a more a perfected Government control of the Socialist
     State, the essential relationship between the governed and the
     governing, the worker and the controller, will be the same; and this
     relationship so long as it lasts can be maintained only by the
     bloody brutality of the policeman's bludgeon and the soldier's
     rifle." [The Anarchist Revolution, pp. 8-9]

   The key to seeing why state socialism is simply state capitalism can be
   found in the lack of change in the social relationships at the point of
   production. The workers are still wage slaves, employed by the state
   and subject to its orders. As Lenin stressed in State and Revolution,
   under Marxist Socialism "[a]ll citizens are transformed into hired
   employees of the state . . . All citizens become employees and workers
   of a single country-wide state 'syndicate' . . . The whole of society
   will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of
   labour and pay." [Collected Works, vol. 25, pp. 473-4] Given that
   Engels had argued, against anarchism, that a factory required
   subordination, authority, lack of freedom and "a veritable despotism
   independent of all social organisation," Lenin's idea of turning the
   world into one big factory takes on an extremely frightening nature.
   [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 731] A reality which one anarchist described in
   1923 as being the case in Lenin's Russia:

     "The nationalisation of industry, removing the workers from the
     hands of individual capitalists, delivered them to the yet more
     rapacious hands of a single, ever-present capitalist boss, the
     State. The relations between the workers and this new boss are the
     same as earlier relations between labour and capital, with the sole
     difference that the Communist boss, the State, not only exploits the
     workers, but also punishes them himself . . . Wage labour has
     remained what it was before, except that it has taken on the
     character of an obligation to the State . . . It is clear that in
     all this we are dealing with a simple substitution of State
     capitalism for private capitalism." [Peter Arshinov, History of the
     Makhnovist Movement, p. 71]

   All of which makes Bakunin's comments seem justified (as well as
   stunningly accurate):

     "Labour financed by the State - such is the fundamental principle of
     authoritarian Communism, of State Socialism. The State, having
     become the sole proprietor . . . will have become sole capitalist,
     banker, money-lender, organiser, director of all national work, and
     the distributor of its profits." [The Political Philosophy of
     Bakunin, p. 293]

   Such a system, based on those countries "where modern capitalist
   development has reached its highest point of development" would see
   "the gradual or violent expropriation of the present landlords and
   capitalists, or of the appropriation of all land and capital by the
   State. In order to be able to carry out its great economic and social
   mission, this State will have to be very far-reaching, very powerful
   and highly centralised. It will administer and supervise agriculture by
   means of its appointed mangers, who will command armies of rural
   workers organised and disciplined for that purpose. At the same time,
   it will set up a single bank on the ruins of all existing banks." Such
   a system, Bakunin correctly predicted, would be "a barracks regime for
   the proletariat, in which a standardised mass of men and women workers
   would wake, sleep, work and live by rote; a regime of privilege for the
   able and the clever." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 258 and
   p. 259]

   Proudhon, likewise was well aware that state ownership did not mean the
   end of private property, rather it meant a change in who ordered the
   working class about. "We do not want," he stated, "to see the State
   confiscate the mines, canals and railways; that would be to add to
   monarchy, and more wage slavery. We want the mines, canals, railways
   handed over to democratically organised workers' associations" which
   would be the start of a "vast federation of companies and societies
   woven into the common cloth of the democratic social Republic." He
   contrasted workers' associations run by and for their members to those
   "subsidised, commanded and directed by the State," which would crush
   "all liberty and all wealth, precisely as the great limited companies
   are doing." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62 and p. 105]

   Simply put, if workers did not directly manage their own work then it
   matters little who formally owns the workplaces in which they toil. As
   Maurice Brinton argued, libertarian socialists "hold that the
   'relations of production' - the relations which individuals or groups
   enter into with one another in the process of producing wealth - are
   the essential foundations of any society. A certain pattern of
   relations of production is the common denominator of all class
   societies. This pattern is one in which the producer does not dominate
   the means of production but on the contrary both is 'separated from
   them' and from the products of his [or her] own labour. In all class
   societies the producer is in a position of subordination to those who
   manage the productive process. Workers' management of production -
   implying as it does the total domination of the producer over the
   productive process - is not for us a marginal matter. It is the core of
   our politics. It is the only means whereby authoritarian (order-giving,
   order-taking) relations in production can be transcended and a free,
   communist or anarchist, society introduced." He went on to note that
   "the means of production may change hands (passing for instance from
   private hands into those of a bureaucracy, collectively owning them)
   without this revolutionising the relations of production. Under such
   circumstances - and whatever the formal status of property - the
   society is still a class society for production is still managed by an
   agency other than the producers themselves. Property relations, in
   other words, do not necessarily reflect the relations of production.
   They may serve to mask them - and in fact they often have." [The
   Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, pp. vii-vii]

   As such, for anarchists (and libertarian Marxists) the idea that state
   ownership of the means of life (the land, workplaces, factories, etc.)
   is the basis of socialism is simply wrong. Therefore, "Anarchism cannot
   look upon the coming revolution as a mere substitution . . . of the
   State as the universal capitalist for the present capitalists."
   [Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 106] Given that the "State
   organisation having always been . . . the instrument for establishing
   monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, [it] cannot be made to
   work for the destruction of these monopolies. The anarchists consider,
   therefore, that to hand over to the State all the main sources of
   economic life - the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance,
   and so on - as also the management of all the main branches of industry
   . . . would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State
   capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and
   capitalism." [Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 286] Needless to say, a society
   which was not democratic in the workplace would not remain democratic
   politically either. Either democracy would become as formal as it is
   within any capitalist republic or it would be replaced by dictatorship.
   So, without a firm base in the direct management of production, any
   "socialist" society would see working class social power ("political
   power") and liberty wither and die, just like a flower ripped out of
   the soil.

   Unsurprisingly, given all this, we discover throughout history the
   co-existence of private and state property. Indeed, the nationalisation
   of key services and industries has been implemented under all kinds of
   capitalist governments and within all kinds of capitalist states (which
   proves the non-socialist nature of state ownership). Moreover,
   anarchists can point to specific events where the capitalist class has
   used nationalisation to undermine revolutionary gains by the working
   class. The best example by far is in the Spanish Revolution, when the
   Catalan government used nationalisation against the wave of
   spontaneous, anarchist inspired, collectivisation which had placed most
   of industry into the direct hands of the workers. The government, under
   the guise of legalising the gains of the workers, placed them under
   state ownership to stop their development, ensure hierarchical control
   and so class society. A similar process occurred during the Russian
   Revolution under the Bolsheviks. Significantly, "many managers, at
   least those who remained, appear to have preferred nationalisation
   (state control) to workers' control and co-operated with Bolshevik
   commissars to introduce it. Their motives are not too difficult to
   understand . . . The issue of who runs the plants - who makes decisions
   - is, and probably always will be, the crucial question for managers in
   any industrial relations system." [Jay B. Sorenson, The Life and Death
   of Soviet Trade Unionism, pp. 67-8] As we discuss in the [94]next
   section, the managers and capitalists were not the only ones who
   disliked "workers' control," the Bolsheviks did so as well, and they
   ensured that it was marginalised within a centralised system of state
   control based on nationalisation.

   As such, anarchists think that a utterly false dichotomy has been built
   up in discussions of socialism, one which has served the interests of
   both capitalists and state bureaucrats. This dichotomy is simply that
   the economic choices available to humanity are "private" ownership of
   productive means (capitalism), or state ownership of productive means
   (usually defined as "socialism"). In this manner, capitalist nations
   used the Soviet Union, and continue to use autocracies like North
   Korea, China, and Cuba as examples of the evils of "public" ownership
   of productive assets. While the hostility of the capitalist class to
   such regimes is often used by Leninists as a rationale to defend them
   (as "degenerated workers' states", to use the Trotskyist term) this is
   a radically false conclusion. As one anarchist argued in 1940 against
   Trotsky (who first raised this notion):

     "Expropriation of the capitalist class is naturally terrifying to
     'the bourgeoisie of the whole world,' but that does not prove
     anything about a workers' state . . . In Stalinist Russia
     expropriation is carried out . . . by, and ultimately for the
     benefit of, the bureaucracy, not by the workers at all. The
     bourgeoisie are afraid of expropriation, of power passing out of
     their hands, whoever seizes it from them. They will defend their
     property against any class or clique. The fact that they are
     indignant [about Stalinism] proves their fear - it tells us nothing
     at all about the agents inspiring that fear." [J.H., "The Fourth
     International", pp. 37-43, The Left and World War II, Vernon
     Richards (ed.), pp. 41-2]

   Anarchists see little distinction between "private" ownership of the
   means of life and "state" ownership. This is because the state is a
   highly centralised structure specifically designed to exclude mass
   participation and so, therefore, necessarily composed of a ruling
   administrative body. As such, the "public" cannot actually "own" the
   property the state claims to hold in its name. The ownership and thus
   control of the productive means is then in the hands of a ruling elite,
   the state administration (i.e. bureaucracy). The "means of wealth
   production" are "owned by the state which represents, as always, a
   privileged class - the bureaucracy." The workers "do not either
   individually or collectively own anything, and so, as elsewhere, are
   compelled to sell their labour power to the employer, in this case the
   state." ["USSR - The Anarchist Position", pp. 21-24, Op. Cit., p. 23]
   Thus, the means of production and land of a state "socialist" regime
   are not publicly owned - rather, they are owned by a bureaucratic
   elite, in the name of the people, a subtle but important distinction.
   As one Chinese anarchist put it:

     "Marxian socialism advocates the centralisation not only of
     political power but also of capital. The centralisation of political
     power is dangerous enough in itself; add to that the placing of all
     sources of wealth in the hands of the government, and the so-called
     state socialism becomes merely state capitalism, with the state as
     the owner of the means of production and the workers as its
     labourers, who hand over the value produced by their labour. The
     bureaucrats are the masters, the workers their slaves. Even though
     they advocate a state of the dictatorship of workers, the rulers are
     bureaucrats who do not labour, while workers are the sole producers.
     Therefore, the suffering of workers under state socialism is no
     different from that under private capitalism." [Ou Shengbai, quoted
     by Arif Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, p. 224]

   In this fashion, decisions about the allocation and use of the
   productive assets are not made by the people themselves, but by the
   administration, by economic planners. Similarly, in "private"
   capitalist economies, economic decisions are made by a coterie of
   managers. In both cases the managers make decisions which reflect their
   own interests and the interests of the owners (be it shareholders or
   the state bureaucracy) and not the workers involved or society as a
   whole. In both cases, economic decision-making is top-down in nature,
   made by an elite of administrators - bureaucrats in the state socialist
   economy, capitalists or managers in the "private" capitalist economy.
   The much-lauded distinction of capitalism is that unlike the
   monolithic, centralised state socialist bureaucracy it has a choice of
   bosses (and choosing a master is not freedom). And given the
   similarities in the relations of production between capitalism and
   state "socialism," the obvious inequalities in wealth in so-called
   "socialist" states are easily explained. The relations of production
   and the relations of distribution are inter-linked and so inequality in
   terms of power in production means inequality in control of the social
   product, which will be reflected in inequality in terms of wealth. The
   mode of distributing the social product is inseparable from the mode of
   production and its social relationships. Which shows the fundamentally
   confused nature of Trotsky's attempts to denounce the Stalinist
   regime's privileges as "bourgeois" while defending its "socialist"
   economic base (see Cornelius Castoriadis, "The Relations of Production
   in Russia", pp. 107-158, Political and Social Writings, vol. 1).

   In other words, private property exists if some individuals (or groups)
   control/own things which are used by other people. This means,
   unsurprising, that state ownership is just a form of property rather
   than the negation of it. If you have a highly centralised structure (as
   the state is) which plans and decides about all things within
   production, then this central administrative would be the real owner
   because it has the exclusive right to decide how things are used, not
   those using them. The existence of this central administrative strata
   excludes the abolition of property, replacing socialism or communism
   with state owned "property," i.e. state capitalism. As such, state
   ownership does not end wage labour and, therefore, social inequalities
   in terms of wealth and access to resources. Workers are still
   order-takers under state ownership (whose bureaucrats control the
   product of their labour and determine who gets what). The only
   difference between workers under private property and state property is
   the person telling them what to do. Simply put, the capitalist or
   company appointed manager is replaced by a state appointed one.

   As anarcho-syndicalist Tom Brown stressed, when "the many control the
   means whereby they live, they will do so by abolishing private
   ownership and establishing common ownership of the means of production,
   with workers' control of industry." However, this is "not to be
   confused with nationalisation and state control" as "ownership is, in
   theory, said to be vested in the people" but, in fact "control is in
   the hands of a small class of bureaucrats." Then "common ownership does
   not exist, but the labour market and wage labour go on, the worker
   remaining a wage slave to State capitalism." Simply put, common
   ownership "demands common control. This is possible only in a condition
   of industrial democracy by workers' control." [Syndicalism, p. 94] In
   summary:

     "Nationalisation is not Socialisation, but State Capitalism . . .
     Socialisation . . . is not State ownership, but the common, social
     ownership of the means of production, and social ownership implies
     control by the producers, not by new bosses. It implies Workers'
     Control of Industry - and that is Syndicalism." [Op. Cit., p. 111]

   However, many Marxists (in particular Leninists) state they are in
   favour of both state ownership and "workers' control." As we discuss in
   more depth in [95]next section, while they mean the same thing as
   anarchists do by the first term, they have a radically different
   meaning for the second (it is for this reason modern-day anarchists
   generally use the term "workers' self-management"). To anarchist ears,
   the combination of nationalisation (state ownership) and "workers'
   control" (and even more so, self-management) simply expresses political
   confusion, a mishmash of contradictory ideas which simply hides the
   reality that state ownership, by its very nature, precludes workers'
   control. As such, anarchists reject such contradictory rhetoric in
   favour of "socialisation" and "workers' self-management of production."
   History shows that nationalisation will always undermine workers'
   control at the point of production and such rhetoric always paves the
   way for state capitalism.

   Therefore, anarchists are against both nationalisation and
   privatisation, recognising both as forms of capitalism, of wage
   slavery. We believe in genuine public ownership of productive assets,
   rather than corporate/private or state/bureaucratic control. Only in
   this manner can the public address their own economic needs. Thus, we
   see a third way that is distinct from the popular "either/or" options
   forwarded by capitalists and state socialists, a way that is entirely
   more democratic. This is workers' self-management of production, based
   on social ownership of the means of life by federations of self-managed
   syndicates and communes.

   Finally, it should be mentioned that some Leninists do have an analysis
   of Stalinism as "state capitalist," most noticeably the British SWP.
   According to the creator of this theory, Tony Cliff, Stalinism had to
   be considered a class system because "[i]f the state is the repository
   of the means of production and the workers do not control it, they do
   not own the means of production, i.e., they are not the ruling class."
   Which is fine, as far as it goes (anarchists would stress the social
   relations within production as part of our criteria for what counts as
   socialism). The problems start to accumulate when Cliff tries to
   explain why Stalinism was (state) capitalist.

   For Cliff, internally the USSR could be viewed as one big factory and
   the division of labour driven by bureaucratic decree. Only when
   Stalinism was "viewed within the international economy the basic
   features of capitalism can be discerned." Thus it is international
   competition which makes the USSR subject to "the law of value" and,
   consequently, capitalist. However, as international trade was tiny
   under Stalinism "competition with other countries is mainly military."
   It is this indirect competition in military matters which made
   Stalinist Russia capitalist rather than any internal factor. [State
   capitalism in Russia, pp. 311-2, p. 221 and p. 223]

   The weakness of this argument should be obvious. From an anarchist
   position, it fails to discuss the social relations within production
   and the obvious fact that workers could, and did, move workplaces
   (i.e., there was a market for labour). Cliff only mentions the fact
   that the Stalinist regime's plans were never fulfilled when he shows up
   the inefficiencies of Stalinist mismanagement. With regards to labour,
   that appears to be divided according to the plan. Similarly, to explain
   Stalinism's "capitalist" nature as being a product of military
   competition with other, more obviously, capitalist states is a joke. It
   is like arguing that Ford is a capitalist company because BMW is! As
   one libertarian Marxist put it: "One can only wonder as to the type of
   contortions Cliff might have got into if Soviet military competition
   had been with China alone!" [Neil C. Fernandez, Capitalism and Class
   Struggle in the USSR, p. 65] Significantly, Cliff raised the
   possibility of single world-wide Stalinist regime and concluded it
   would not be state capitalist, it would "be a system of exploitation
   not subject to the law of value and all its implications." [Op. Cit.,
   p. 225] As Fernandez correctly summarises:

     "Cliff's position appears untenable when it is remembered that
     whatever capitalism may or may not entail, what it is a mode of
     production, defined by a certain type of social production
     relations. If the USSR is capitalist simply because it produces
     weaponry to compete with those countries that themselves would have
     been capitalist even without such competition, then one might as
     well say the same about tribes whose production is directed to the
     provision of tomahawks in the fight against colonialism." [Op. Cit.,
     p. 65]

   Strangely, as Marxist, Cliff seemed unaware that, for Marx,
   "competition" did not define capitalism. As far as trade goes, the
   "character of the production process from which [goods] derive is
   immaterial" and so on the market commodities come "from all modes of
   production" (for example, they could be "the produce of production
   based on slavery, the product of peasants . . ., of a community . . . ,
   of state production (such as existed in earlier epochs of Russian
   history, based on serfdom) or half-savage hunting peoples"). [Capital,
   vol. 2, pp. 189-90] This means that trade "exploits a given mode of
   production but does not create it" and so relates "to the mode of
   production from outside." [Capital, vol. 3, p. 745] Much the same can
   be said of military competition - it does not define the mode of
   production.

   There are other problems with Cliff's argument, namely that it implies
   that Lenin's regime was also state capitalist (as anarchists stress,
   but Leninists deny). If, as Cliff suggests, a "workers' state" is one
   in which "the proletariat has direct or indirect control, no matter how
   restricted, over the state power" then Lenin's regime was not one
   within six months. Similarly, workers' self-management was replaced by
   one-man management under Lenin, meaning that Stalin inherited the
   (capitalistic) relations of production rather than created them.
   Moreover, if it were military competition which made Stalinism "state
   capitalist" then, surely, so was Bolshevik Russia when it was fighting
   the White and Imperialist armies during the Civil War. Nor does Cliff
   prove that a proletariat actually existed under Stalinism, raising the
   clear contradiction that "[i]f there is only one employer, a 'change of
   masters' is impossible . . . a mere formality" while also attacking
   those who argued that Stalinism was "bureaucratic collectivism" because
   Russian workers were not proletarians but rather slaves. So this "mere
   formality" is used to explain that the Russian worker is a proletarian,
   not a slave, and so Russia was state capitalist in nature! [Cliff, Op.
   Cit., p. 310, p. 219, p. 350 and p. 348]

   All in all, attempts to draw a clear line between Leninism and
   Stalinism as regards its state capitalist nature are doomed to failure.
   The similarities are far too obvious and simply support the anarchist
   critique of state socialism as nothing more than state capitalism.
   Ultimately, "Trotskyism merely promises socialism by adopting the same
   methods, and mistakes, which have produced Stalinism." [J.H., "The
   Fourth International", pp. 37-43, The Left and World War II, Vernon
   Richards (ed.), p. 43]

H.3.14 Don't Marxists believe in workers' control?

   As we discussed in the [96]last section, anarchists consider the usual
   association of state ownership with socialism to be false. We argue
   that it is just another form of the wages system, of capitalism, albeit
   with the state replacing the capitalist and so state ownership, for
   anarchists, is simply state capitalism. Instead we urge socialisation
   based on workers' self-management of production. Libertarian Marxists
   concur.

   Some mainstream Marxists, however, say they seek to combine state
   ownership with "workers' control." This can be seen from Trotsky, for
   example, who argued in 1938 for "workers' control . . . the penetration
   of the workers' eye into all open and concealed springs of capitalist
   economy . . . workers' control becomes a school for planned economy. On
   the basis of the experience of control, the proletariat will prepare
   itself for direct management of nationalised industry when the hour for
   that eventuality strikes." This, it is argued, proves that
   nationalisation (state ownership and control) is not "state capitalism"
   but rather "control is the first step along the road to the socialist
   guidance of economy." [The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of
   the Fourth International, p. 73 and p. 74] This explains why many
   modern day Leninists are often heard voicing support for what
   anarchists consider an obvious oxymoron, namely "nationalisation under
   workers' control."

   Anarchists are not convinced. This is because of two reasons. Firstly,
   because by the term "workers' control" anarchists and Leninists mean
   two radically different things. Secondly, when in power Trotsky
   advocated radically different ideas. Based on these reasons, anarchists
   view Leninist calls for "workers' control" simply as a means of gaining
   popular support, calls which will be ignored once the real aim, party
   power, has been achieved: it is an example of Trotsky's comment that
   "[s]logans as well as organisational forms should be subordinated to
   the indices of the movement." [Op. Cit., p. 72] In other words, rather
   than express a commitment to the ideas of worker's control of
   production, mainstream Marxist use of the term "workers' control" is
   simply an opportunistic technique aiming at securing support for the
   party's seizure of power and once this is achieved it will be cast
   aside in favour of the first part of the demands, namely state
   ownership and so control. In making this claim anarchists feel they
   have more than enough evidence, evidence which many members of Leninist
   parties simply know nothing about.

   We will look first at the question of terminology. Anarchists
   traditionally used the term "workers' control" to mean workers' full
   and direct control over their workplaces, and their work. However,
   after the Russian Revolution a certain ambiguity arose in using that
   term. This is because specific demands which were raised during that
   revolution were translated into English as "workers' control" when, in
   fact, the Russian meaning of the word (kontrolia) was far closer to
   "supervision" or "steering." Thus the term "workers' control" is used
   to describe two radically different concepts.

   This can be seen from Trotsky when he argued that the workers should
   "demand resumption, as public utilities, of work in private businesses
   closed as a result of the crisis. Workers' control in such case would
   be replaced by direct workers' management." [Op. Cit., p. 73] Why
   workers' employed in open capitalist firms were not considered suitable
   for "direct workers' management" is not explained, but the fact remains
   Trotsky clearly differentiated between management and control. For him,
   "workers' control" meant "workers supervision" over the capitalist who
   retained power. Thus the "slogan of workers control of production" was
   not equated to actual workers control over production. Rather, it was
   "a sort of economic dual power" which meant that "ownership and right
   of disposition remain in the hands of the capitalists." This was
   because it was "obvious that the power is not yet in the hands of the
   proletariat, otherwise we would have not workers' control of production
   but the control of production by the workers' state as an introduction
   to a regime of state production on the foundations of nationalisation."
   [Trotsky, The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany, p. 91 and p. 92]

   This vision of "workers' control" as simply supervision of the
   capitalist managers and a prelude to state control and, ultimately,
   nationalisation can be found in Lenin. Rather than seeing "workers'
   control" as workers managing production directly, he always saw it in
   terms of workers' "controlling" those who did. It simply meant "the
   country-wide, all-embracing, omnipresent, most precise and most
   conscientious accounting of the production and distribution of goods."
   He clarified what he meant, arguing for "country-wide, all-embracing
   workers' control over the capitalists" who would still manage
   production. Significantly, he considered that "as much as nine-tenths
   of the socialist apparatus" required for this "country-wide
   book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and
   distribution of goods" would be achieved by nationalising the "big
   banks," which "are the 'state apparatus' which we need to bring about
   socialism" (indeed, this was considered "something in the nature of the
   skeleton of socialist society"). This structure would be taken intact
   from capitalism for "the modern state possesses an apparatus which has
   extremely close connection with the banks and [business] syndicates . .
   . this apparatus must not, and should not, be smashed." [Collected
   Works, vol. 26, p. 105, p. 107, p. 106 and pp. 105-6] Over time, this
   system would move towards full socialism.

   Thus, what Leninists mean by "workers' control" is radically different
   than what anarchists traditionally meant by that term (indeed, it was
   radically different from the workers' definition, as can be seen from a
   resolution of the Bolshevik dominated First Trade Union Congress which
   complained that "the workers misunderstand and falsely interpret
   workers' control." [quoted by M. Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers'
   Control, p. 32]). It is for this reason that from the 1960s English
   speaking anarchists and other libertarian socialists have been explicit
   and have used the term "workers' self-management" rather than "workers'
   control" to describe their aims. Mainstream Marxists, however have
   continued to use the latter slogan, undoubtedly, as we note in
   [97]section H.3.5, to gain members from the confusion in meanings.

   Secondly, there is the example of the Russian Revolution itself. As
   historian S.A. Smith correctly summarises, the Bolshevik party "had no
   position on the question of workers' control prior to 1917." The
   "factory committees launched the slogan of workers' control of
   production quite independently of the Bolshevik party. It was not until
   May that the party began to take it up." However, Lenin used "the term
   ['workers' control'] in a very different sense from that of the factory
   committees." In fact Lenin's proposals were "thoroughly statist and
   centralist in character, whereas the practice of the factory committees
   was essentially local and autonomous." While those Bolsheviks
   "connected with the factory committees assigned responsibility for
   workers' control of production chiefly to the committees" this "never
   became official Bolshevik party policy." In fact, "the Bolsheviks never
   deviated before or after October from a commitment to a statist,
   centralised solution to economic disorder. The disagreement between the
   two wings of the socialist movement [i.e., the Mensheviks and
   Bolsheviks] was not about state control in the abstract, but what kind
   of state should co-ordinate control of the economy: a bourgeois state
   or a workers' state?" They "did not disagree radically in the specific
   measures which they advocated for control of the economy." Lenin "never
   developed a conception of workers' self-management. Even after October,
   workers' control remained for him fundamentally a matter of
   'inspection' and 'accounting' . . . rather than as being necessary to
   the transformation of the process of production by the direct
   producers. For Lenin, the transformation of capitalist relations of
   production was achieved at central-state level, rather than at
   enterprise level. Progress to socialism was guaranteed by the character
   of the state and achieved through policies by the central state - not
   by the degree of power exercised by workers on the shop floor." [Red
   Petrograd, p. 153, p. 154, p. 159, p. 153, p. 154 and p. 228]

   Thus the Bolshevik vision of "workers' control" was always placed in a
   statist context and it would be exercised not by workers' organisations
   but rather by state capitalist institutions. This has nothing in common
   with control by the workers themselves and their own class
   organisations as advocated by anarchists. In May 1917, Lenin was
   arguing for the "establishment of state control over all banks, and
   their amalgamation into a single central bank; also control over the
   insurance agencies and big capitalist syndicates." [Collected Works,
   vol. 24, p. 311] He reiterated this framework later that year, arguing
   that "the new means of control have been created not by us, but by
   capitalism in its military-imperialist stage" and so "the proletariat
   takes its weapons from capitalism and does not 'invent' or 'create them
   out of nothing.'" The aim was "compulsory amalgamation in associations
   under state control," "by workers' control of the workers' state." [Op.
   Cit., vol. 26, p. 108, p. 109 and p. 108] The factory committees were
   added to this "state capitalist" system but they played only a very
   minor role in it. Indeed, this system of state control was designed to
   limit the power of the factory committees:

     "One of the first decrees issues by the Bolshevik Government was the
     Decree on Workers' Control of 27 November 1917. By this decree
     workers' control was institutionalised . . . Workers' control
     implied the persistence of private ownership of the means of
     production, though with a 'diminished' right of disposal. The organs
     of workers' control, the factory committees, were not supposed to
     evolve into workers' management organs after the nationalisation of
     the factories. The hierarchical structure of factory work was not
     questioned by Lenin . . . To the Bolshevik leadership the transfer
     of power to the working class meant power to its leadership, i.e. to
     the party. Central control was the main goal of the Bolshevik
     leadership. The hasty creation of the VSNKh (the Supreme Council of
     the National Economy) on 1 December 1917, with precise tasks in the
     economic field, was a significant indication of fact that
     decentralised management was not among the projects of the party,
     and that the Bolsheviks intended to counterpoise central direction
     of the economy to the possible evolution of workers' control toward
     self-management." [Silvana Malle, The Economic Organisation of War
     Communism, 1918-1921, p. 47]

   Once in power, the Bolsheviks soon turned away from even this limited
   vision of workers' control and in favour of "one-man management." Lenin
   raised this idea in late April 1918 and it involved granting state
   appointed "individual executives dictatorial powers (or 'unlimited'
   powers)." Large-scale industry required "thousands subordinating their
   will to the will of one," and so the revolution "demands" that "the
   people unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of labour."
   Lenin's "superior forms of labour discipline" were simply
   hyper-developed capitalist forms. The role of workers in production was
   the same, but with a novel twist, namely "unquestioning obedience to
   the orders of individual representatives of the Soviet government
   during the work." This support for wage slavery was combined with
   support for capitalist management techniques. "We must raise the
   question of piece-work and apply and test it in practice," argued
   Lenin, "we must raise the question of applying much of what is
   scientific and progressive in the Taylor system; we must make wages
   correspond to the total amount of goods turned out." [Lenin, Op. Cit.,
   vol. 27, p. 267, p. 269, p. 271 and p. 258]

   This vision had already been applied in practice, with the "first
   decree on the management of nationalised enterprises in March 1918"
   which had "established two directors at the head of each enterprise . .
   . Both directors were appointed by the central administrators." An
   "economic and administrative council" was also created in the
   workplace, but this "did not reflect a syndicalist concept of
   management." Rather it included representatives of the employees,
   employers, engineers, trade unions, the local soviets, co-operatives,
   the local economic councils and peasants. This composition "weakened
   the impact of the factory workers on decision-making . . . The workers'
   control organs [the factory committees] remained in a subordinate
   position with respect to the council." Once the Civil War broke out in
   May 1918, this process was accelerated. By 1920, most workplaces were
   under one-man management and the Communist Party at its Ninth Congress
   had "promoted one-man management as the most suitable form of
   management." [Malle, Op. Cit., p. 111, p. 112, p. 141 and p. 128] In
   other words, the manner in which Lenin organised industry had handed it
   over entirely into the hands of the bureaucracy.

   Trotsky did not disagree with all this, quite the reverse - he
   wholeheartedly defended the imposing of "one-man management". As he put
   it in 1920, "our Party Congress . . . expressed itself in favour of the
   principle of one-man management in the administration of industry . . .
   It would be the greatest possible mistake, however, to consider this
   decision as a blow to the independence of the working class. The
   independence of the workers is determined and measured not by whether
   three workers or one are placed at the head of a factory." As such, it
   "would consequently be a most crying error to confuse the question as
   to the supremacy of the proletariat with the question of boards of
   workers at the head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat
   is expressed in the abolition of private property in the means of
   production, in the supremacy over the whole Soviet mechanism of the
   collective will of the workers, and not at all in the form in which
   individual economic enterprises are administered." The term "collective
   will of the workers" is simply a euphemism for the Party which Trotsky
   had admitted had "substituted" its dictatorship for that of the Soviets
   (indeed, "there is nothing accidental" in this "'substitution' of the
   power of the party for the power of the working class" and "in reality
   there is no substitution at all." The "dictatorship of the Soviets
   became possible only by means of the dictatorship of the party"). The
   unions "should discipline the workers and teach them to place the
   interests of production above their own needs and demands." He even
   argued that "the only solution to economic difficulties from the point
   of view of both principle and of practice is to treat the population of
   the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power . . .
   and to introduce strict order into the work of its registration,
   mobilisation and utilisation." [Terrorism and Communism, p. 162, p.
   109, p. 143 and p. 135]

   Trotsky did not consider this a result of the Civil War. Again, the
   opposite was the case: "I consider if the civil war had not plundered
   our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most
   endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of
   one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner
   and much less painfully." [Op. Cit., pp. 162-3] Significantly,
   discussing developments in Russia since the N.E.P, Trotsky a few years
   later argued that it was "necessary for each state-owned factory, with
   its technical director and with its commercial director, to be
   subjected not only to control from the top - by the state organs - but
   also from below, by the market which will remain the regulator of the
   state economy for a long time to come." Workers' control, as can be
   seen, was not even mentioned, nor considered as an essential aspect of
   control "from below." As Trotsky also stated that "[u]nder socialism
   economic life will be directed in a centralised manner," our discussion
   of the state capitalist nature of mainstream Marxism we presented in
   the [98]last section is confirmed. [The First Five Years of the
   Communist International, vol. 2, p. 237 and p. 229]

   The contrast between what Trotsky did when he was in power and what he
   argued for after he had been expelled is obvious. Indeed, the arguments
   of 1938 and 1920 are in direct contradiction to each other. Needless to
   say, Leninists and Trotskyists today are fonder of quoting Trotsky and
   Lenin when they did not have state power rather than when they did.
   Rather than compare what they said to what they did, they simply repeat
   ambiguous slogans which meant radically different things to Lenin and
   Trotsky than to the workers' who thrust them into power. For obvious
   reasons, we feel. Given the opportunity for latter day Leninists to
   exercise power, we wonder if a similar process would occur again? Who
   would be willing to take that chance?

   As such, any claim that mainstream Marxism considers "workers' control"
   as an essential feature of its politics is simply nonsense. For a
   comprehensive discussion of "workers' control" during the Russian
   Revolution Maurice Brinton's account cannot be bettered. As he
   stressed, "only the ignorant or those willing to be deceived can still
   kid themselves into believing that proletarian power at the point of
   production was ever a fundamental tenet or objective of Bolshevism."
   [The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 14]

   All this is not some academic point. As Brinton noted, faced "with the
   bureaucratic monstrosity of Stalinist and post-Stalinist Russia, yet
   wishing to retain some credibility among their working class
   supporters, various strands of Bolshevism have sought posthumously to
   rehabilitate the concept of 'workers' control.'" The facts show that
   between 1917 and 1921 "all attempts by the working class to assert real
   power over production - or to transcend the narrow role allocated by to
   it by the Party - were smashed by the Bolsheviks, after first having
   been denounced as anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist deviations. Today
   workers' control is presented as a sort of sugar coating to the pill of
   nationalisation of every Trotskyist or Leninist micro-bureaucrat on the
   make. Those who strangled the viable infant are now hawking the corpse
   around " [For Workers' Power, p. 165] Little has changes since Brinton
   wrote those words in the 1960s, with Leninists today proclaiming with a
   straight face that they stand for "self-management"!

   The roots of this confusion can be found in Marx and Engels. In the
   struggle between authentic socialism (i.e. workers' self-management)
   and state capitalism (i.e. state ownership) there are elements of the
   correct solution to be found in their ideas, namely their support for
   co-operatives. For example, Marx praised the efforts made within the
   Paris Commune to create co-operatives, so "transforming the means of
   production, land and capital . . . into mere instruments of free and
   associated labour." He argued that "[i]f co-operative production is not
   to remain a shame and a snare; if it is to supersede the Capitalist
   system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national
   production upon a common plan, thus taking it under their own control,
   and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions
   which are the fatality of Capitalist production - what else . . . would
   it be but Communism, 'possible' Communism?" [Selected Works, pp. 290-1]
   In the 1880s, Engels suggested as a reform the putting of public works
   and state-owned land into the hands of workers' co-operatives rather
   than capitalists. [Collected Works, vol. 47, p. 239]

   These comments should not be taken as being totally without aspects of
   nationalisation. Engels argued for "the transfer - initially on lease -
   of large estates to autonomous co-operatives under state management and
   effected in such a way that the State retains ownership of the land."
   He stated that neither he nor Marx "ever doubted that, in the course of
   transition to a wholly communist economy, widespread use would have to
   be made of co-operative management as an intermediate stage. Only it
   will mean so organising things that society, i.e. initially the State,
   retains ownership of the means of production and thus prevents the
   particular interests of the co-operatives from taking precedence over
   those of society as a whole." [Op. Cit., p. 389] However, Engels
   comments simply bring home the impossibilities of trying to reconcile
   state ownership and workers' self-management. While the advocacy of
   co-operatives is a positive step forward from the statist arguments of
   the Communist Manifesto, Engels squeezes these libertarian forms of
   organising production into typically statist structures. How
   "autonomous co-operatives" can co-exist with (and under!) "state
   management" and "ownership" is not explained, not to mention the fatal
   confusion of socialisation with nationalisation.

   In addition, the differences between the comments of Marx and Engels
   are obvious. While Marx talks of "united co-operative societies,"
   Engels talks of "the State." The former implies a free federation of
   co-operatives, the latter a centralised structure which the
   co-operatives are squeezed into and under. The former is socialist, the
   latter is state capitalist. From Engels argument, it is obvious that
   the stress is on state ownership and management rather than
   self-management. This confusion became a source of tragedy during the
   Russian Revolution when the workers, like their comrades during the
   Commune, started to form a federation of factory committees while the
   Bolsheviks squeezed these bodies into a system of state control which
   was designed to marginalise them.

   Moreover, the aims of the Paris workers were at odds with the vision of
   the Communist Manifesto and in line with anarchism - most obviously
   Proudhon's demands for workers associations to replace wage labour and
   what he called, in his Principle of Federation, an "agro-industrial
   federation." Thus the Commune's idea of co-operative production was a
   clear expression of what Proudhon explicitly called "industrial
   democracy," a "reorganisation of industry, under the jurisdiction of
   all those who compose it." [quoted by K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph
   Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 225] Thus,
   while Engels (in part) echoes Proudhon's ideas, he does not go fully
   towards a self-managed system of co-operation and co-ordination based
   on the workers' own organisations. Significantly, Bakunin and later
   anarchists simply developed these ideas to their logical conclusion.

   Marx, to his credit, supported these libertarian visions when applied
   in practice by the Paris workers during the Commune and promptly
   revised his ideas. This fact has been obscured somewhat by Engels
   historical revisionism in this matter. In his 1891 introduction to
   Marx's "The Civil War in France", Engels painted a picture of Proudhon
   being opposed to association (except for large-scale industry) and
   stressed that "to combine all these associations in one great union"
   was "the direct opposite of the Proudhon doctrine" and so "the Commune
   was the grave of the Proudhon doctrine." [Selected Works, p. 256]
   However, as noted, this is nonsense. The forming of workers'
   associations and their federation was a key aspect of Proudhon's ideas
   and so the Communards were obviously acting in his spirit. Given that
   the Communist Manifesto stressed state ownership and failed to mention
   co-operatives at all, the claim that the Commune acted in its spirit
   seems a tad optimistic. He also argued that the "economic measures" of
   the Commune were driven not by "principles" but by "simple, practical
   needs." This meant that "the confiscation of shut-down factories and
   workshops and handing them over to workers' associations" were "not at
   all in accordance with the spirit of Proudhonism but certainly in
   accordance with the spirit of German scientific socialism"! This seems
   unlikely, given Proudhon's well known and long-standing advocacy of
   co-operatives as well as Marx's comment in 1866 that in France the
   workers ("particularly those of Paris"!) "are strongly attached,
   without knowing it [!], to the old rubbish" and that the "Parisian
   gentlemen had their heads full of the emptiest Proudhonist phrases."
   [Marx, Engels, Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 92, p. 46
   and p. 45]

   What did this "old rubbish" consist of? Well, in 1869 the delegate of
   the Parisian Construction Workers' Trade Union argued that
   "[a]ssociation of the different corporations [labour
   unions/associations] on the basis of town or country . . . leads to the
   commune of the future . . . Government is replaced by the assembled
   councils of the trade bodies, and by a committee of their respective
   delegates." In addition, "a local grouping which allows the workers in
   the same area to liase on a day to day basis" and "a linking up of the
   various localities, fields, regions, etc." (i.e. international trade or
   industrial union federations) would ensure that "labour organises for
   present and future by doing away with wage slavery." This "mode of
   organisation leads to the labour representation of the future." [No
   Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 184]

   To state the obvious, this had clear links with both Proudhon's ideas
   and what the Commune did in practice. Rather than being the "grave" of
   Proudhon's ideas on workers' associations, the Commune saw their birth,
   i.e. their application. Rather than the Parisian workers becoming
   Marxists without knowing it, Marx had become a follower of Proudhon!
   The idea of socialism being based on a federation of workers'
   associations was not buried with the Paris Commune. It was integrated
   into all forms of social anarchism (including communist-anarchism and
   anarcho-syndicalism) and recreated every time there is a social
   revolution.

   In ending we must note that anarchists are well aware that individual
   workplaces could pursue aims at odds with the rest of society (to use
   Engels expression, their "particular interests"). This is often termed
   "localism." Anarchists, however, argue that the mainstream Marxist
   solution is worse than the problem. By placing self-managed workplaces
   under state control (or ownership) they become subject to even worse
   "particular interests," namely those of the state bureaucracy who will
   use their power to further their own interests. In contrast, anarchists
   advocate federations of self-managed workplaces to solve this problem.
   This is because the problem of "localism" and any other problems faced
   by a social revolution will be solved in the interests of the working
   class only if working class people solve them themselves. For this to
   happen it requires working class people to manage their own affairs
   directly and that implies self-managed organising from the bottom up
   (i.e. anarchism) rather than delegating power to a minority at the top,
   to a "revolutionary" party or state. This applies economically,
   socially and politically. As Bakunin argued, the "revolution should not
   only be made for the people's sake; it should also be made by the
   people." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141]

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech24
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secFcon.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html#sech58
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html#sech51
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech14
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech310
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech38
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech310
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech311
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech312
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech314
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech313
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech21
  18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech11
  19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
  20. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH4.html#sech44
  21. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html
  22. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech11
  23. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html#secb25
  24. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html
  25. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech11
  26. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech33
  27. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
  28. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech32
  29. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html#sech55
  30. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech12
  31. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech38
  32. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html
  33. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech12
  34. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech12
  35. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html
  36. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech17
  37. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech38
  38. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html
  39. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech311
  40. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html
  41. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech12
  42. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html
  43. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html
  44. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech310
  45. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html
  46. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech28
  47. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech314
  48. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech31
  49. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html
  50. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html
  51. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech14
  52. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech21
  53. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH4.html#sech47
  54. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech38
  55. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech39
  56. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech21
  57. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech31
  58. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech310
  59. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech38
  60. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech38
  61. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
  62. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#secH.3.3
  63. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html
  64. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech12
  65. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
  66. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech17
  67. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech12
  68. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech33
  69. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech39
  70. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
  71. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech34
  72. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech21
  73. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
  74. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html#secb25
  75. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html
  76. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech314
  77. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech313
  78. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech39
  79. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech11
  80. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
  81. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech311
  82. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech310
  83. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech14
  84. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
  85. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech33
  86. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html#sech61
  87. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech38
  88. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech313
  89. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html#sech62
  90. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html#seci38
  91. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech314
  92. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci23
  93. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJcon.html
  94. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech314
  95. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech314
  96. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech313
  97. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech35
  98. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech313
