              J.3 What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?

   Anarchists are well aware of the importance of building organisations.
   Organisations allow those within them to multiply their strength and
   activity, becoming the means by which an individual can see their
   ideas, hopes and dreams realised. This is as true for getting the
   anarchist message across as for building a home, running a hospital or
   creating some useful product. Anarchists support two types of
   organisation -- organisations of anarchists and popular organisations
   which are not made up exclusively of anarchists such as industrial
   unions, co-operatives and community assemblies.

   Here we will discuss the kinds, nature and role of the first type of
   organisation, namely explicitly anarchist organisations. In addition,
   we discuss anarcho-syndicalism, a revolutionary unionism which aims to
   create an anarchist society by anarchist tactics, as well as why many
   anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists. The second type of
   organisations, popular ones, are discussed in [1]section J.5. Both
   forms of organisation, however, share the anarchist commitment to
   confederalism, decentralisation, self-management and decision making
   from the bottom up. In such organisations the membership plays the
   decisive role in running them and ensuring that power remains in their
   hands. They express the anarchist vision of the power and creative
   efficacy people have when they are self-reliant, when they act for
   themselves and manage their own lives directly. Only by organising in
   this way can we create a new world, a world worthy of human beings and
   unique individuals.

   Anarchist organisation in all its forms reflects our desire to "build
   the new world in the shell of the old" and to empower the individual.
   We reject the notion that it does not really matter how we organise to
   change society. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. We are
   all the products of the influences and social relationships in our
   lives, this is a basic idea of (philosophical) materialism. Thus the
   way our organisations are structured has an impact on us. If the
   organisation is centralised and hierarchical (no matter how
   "democratically" controlled officials or leaders are) then those
   subject to it will, as in any hierarchical organisation, see their
   abilities to manage their own lives, their creative thought and
   imagination eroded under the constant stream of orders from above. This
   in turn justifies the pretensions to power of those at the top, as the
   capacity of self-management of the rank and file is weakened by
   authoritarian social relationships. This means anarchist organisations
   are structured so that they allow everyone the maximum potential to
   participate. Such participation is the key for a free organisation. As
   Malatesta argued:

     "The real being is man, the individual. Society or the collectivity
     . . . if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of
     individuals. And it is in the organism of every individual that all
     thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from
     being individual they become collective thoughts and acts when they
     are or become accepted by many individuals. Social action,
     therefore, is neither the negation nor the complement of individual
     initiative, but is the resultant of initiatives, thoughts and
     actions of all individuals who make up society." [Anarchy, p. 36]

   Anarchist organisations exist to allow this development and expression
   of individual initiatives. This empowering of the individual is an
   important aspect of creating viable solidarity for sheep cannot express
   solidarity, they only follow the shepherd. Therefore, "to achieve their
   ends, anarchist organisations must, in their constitution and
   operation, remain in harmony with the principles of anarchism; that is,
   they must know how to blend the free action of individuals with the
   necessity and the joy of co-operation which serve to develop the
   awareness and initiative of their members and a means of education for
   the environment in which they operate and of a moral and material
   preparation for the future we desire." [Malatesta, The Anarchist
   Revolution, p. 95]

   As such, anarchist organisations reflect the sort of society anarchists
   desire. We reject as ridiculous the claim of Leninists that the form of
   organisation we build is irrelevant and therefore we must create highly
   centralised parties which aim to become the leadership of the working
   class. No matter how "democratic" such organisations are, they just
   reflect the capitalist division of labour between brain and manual work
   and the Liberal ideology of surrendering our ability to govern
   ourselves to an elected elite. In other words, they just mirror the
   very society we are opposed to and so will soon produce the very
   problems within so-called anti-capitalist organisations which
   originally motivated us to oppose capitalism in the first place (see
   [2]section H.5). Given this, anarchists regard "the Marxist party as
   another statist form that, if it succeeded in 'seizing power,' would
   preserve the power of one human being over another, the authority of
   the leader over the led. The Marxist party . . . was a mirror image of
   the very society it professed to oppose, an invasion of the camp of
   revolutionaries by bourgeois values, methods, and structures." [The
   Spanish Anarchists, pp. 179-80] As can be seen from the history of the
   Russian Revolution, this was the case with the Bolsheviks soon taking
   the lead in undermining workers' self-management, soviet democracy and,
   finally, democracy within the ruling party itself (see [3]section H.6).

   From an anarchist (i.e. materialist) point of view, this was highly
   predictable -- after all, "facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as
   Proudhon said, is but a flower whose root lies in the material
   conditions of existence." [Bakunin, God and the State, p. 9] So it is
   unsurprising that hierarchical parties helped to maintain a
   hierarchical society. In the words of the famous Sonvillier Circular:
   "How could one want an egalitarian and free society to issue from an
   authoritarian organisation? It is impossible." [quoted in Bakunin on
   Anarchism, p. 45]

   We must stress here that anarchists are not opposed to organisation and
   are not opposed to organisations of anarchists (i.e. political
   organisations, although anarchists generally reject the term "party"
   due to its statist and hierarchical associations). Murray Bookchin made
   it clear when he wrote that the "real question at issue here is not
   organisation versus non-organisation, but rather what kind of
   organisation" Anarchist organisations are "organic developments from
   below . . . They are social movements, combing a creative revolutionary
   lifestyle with a creative revolutionary theory . . . As much as is
   humanly possibly, they try to reflect the liberated society they seek
   to achieve" and "co-ordination between groups . . . discipline,
   planning, and unity in action . . . achieved voluntarily, by means of a
   self-discipline nourished by conviction and understanding."
   [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp. 138-9]

   Ultimately, centralised organisations are undemocratic and, equally as
   important, ineffective. Hierarchical organisations kill people's
   enthusiasm and creativity, where plans and ideas are not adopted
   because they are the best but simply because they are what a handful of
   leaders think are best for everyone else. Really effective
   organisations are those which make decisions based frank and open
   co-operation and debate, where dissent is not stifled and ideas are
   adopted because of their merit and not imposed from the top-down by a
   few party leaders. This is why anarchists stress federalist
   organisation. It ensures that co-ordination flows from below and there
   is no institutionalised leadership. By organising in a way that
   reflects the kind of society we want, we train ourselves in the skills
   and decision making processes required to make a free and classless
   society work. Means and ends are united and this ensures that the means
   used will result in the desired ends. Simply put, libertarian means
   must be used if you want libertarian ends (see [4]section H.1.6 for
   further discussion).

   In the sections that follow, we discuss the nature and role of
   anarchist organisation. Anarchists would agree with Situationist Guy
   Debord that a "revolutionary organisation must always remember that its
   objective is not getting people to listen to speeches by expert
   leaders, but getting them to speak for themselves." We organise their
   groups accordingly. In [5]section J.3.1 we discuss the basic building
   block of specifically anarchist organisations, the "affinity group."
   Sections [6]J.3.2, [7]J.3.3, [8]J.3.4 and [9]J.3.5, we discuss the main
   types of federations of affinity groups anarchist create to help spread
   our message and influence. Then [10]section J.3.6 highlights the role
   these organisations play in our struggles to create an anarchist
   society. In [11]section J.3.7, we analyse Bakunin's unfortunate
   expression "Invisible Dictatorship" in order to show how many Marxists
   distort Bakunin's ideas on this matter. Finally, in sections [12]J.3.8
   and [13]J.3.9 we discuss anarcho-syndicalism and other anarchists
   attitudes to it.

   Anarchist organisations, therefore, aim to enrich social struggle by
   their ideas and suggestions but also, far more importantly, enrich the
   libertarian idea by practical experience and activity. In other words,
   a two way process by which life informs theory and theory aids life.
   The means by which this social dynamic is created and developed is the
   underlying aim of anarchist organisation and is reflected in its
   theoretical role. The power of ideas cannot be under estimated, for "if
   you have an idea you can communicate it to a million people and lose
   nothing in the process, and the more the idea is propagated the more it
   acquires in power and effectiveness." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 46] The
   right idea at the right time, one that reflects the needs of
   individuals and of required social change, can have a transforming
   effect on society. That is why organisations that anarchists create to
   spread their message are so important and why we devote a whole section
   to them.

J.3.1 What are affinity groups?

   Affinity groups are the basic organisation which anarchists create to
   spread the anarchist idea. The term "affinity group" comes from the
   Spanish F.A.I. (Iberian Anarchist Federation) and refers to the
   organisational form devised in their struggles for freedom (from "grupo
   de afinidad"). At its most basic, it is a (usually small) group of
   anarchists who work together to spread their ideas to the wider public,
   using propaganda, initiating or working with campaigns and spreading
   their ideas within popular organisations (such as unions) and
   communities. It aims not to be a "leadership" but to give a lead, to
   act as a catalyst within popular movements. Unsurprisingly it reflects
   basic anarchist ideas:

     "Autonomous, communal and directly democratic, the group combines
     revolutionary theory with revolutionary lifestyle in its everyday
     behaviour. It creates a free space in which revolutionaries can
     remake themselves individually, and also as social beings." [Murray
     Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 144]

   The reason for this is simple, for a "movement that sought to promote a
   liberatory revolution had to develop liberatory and revolutionary
   forms. This meant . . . that it had to mirror the free society it was
   trying to achieve, not the repressive one it was trying to overthrow.
   If a movement sought to achieve a world united by solidarity and mutual
   aid, it had to be guided by these precepts; if it sought to achieve a
   decentralised, stateless, non-authoritarian society, it had to be
   structured in accordance with these goals." [Bookchin, The Spanish
   Anarchists, p. 180]

   The aim of an anarchist organisation is to promote a sense of
   community, of confidence in ones own abilities, to enable all to be
   involved in the identification, initiation and management of group
   needs, decisions and activities. They must ensure that individuals are
   in a position (both physically, as part of a group, and mentally, as an
   individual) to manage their own lives and take direct action in the
   pursuit of individual and communal needs and desires. Anarchist
   organisation is about empowering all, to develop "integral" or whole
   individuals and a community that encourages individuality (not abstract
   "individualism") and solidarity. It is about collective decision making
   from the bottom up, that empowers those at the "base" of the structure
   and only delegates the work of co-ordinating and implementing the
   members decisions (and not the power of making decisions for people).
   In this way the initiative and power of the few (government) is
   replaced by the initiative and empowerment of all (anarchy). Affinity
   groups exist to achieve these aims and are structured to encourage
   them.

   The local affinity group is the means by which anarchists co-ordinate
   their activities in a community, workplace, social movement and so on.
   Within these groups, anarchists discuss their ideas, politics and
   hopes, what they plan to do, organise propaganda work, discuss how they
   are going to work within wider organisations like unions, how their
   strategies fit into their long term plans and goals and so on. It is
   the basic way that anarchists work out their ideas, pull their
   resources and get their message across to others. There can be affinity
   groups for different interests and activities (for example a workplace
   affinity group, a community affinity group, an anarcha-feminist
   affinity group, etc., could all exist within the same area, with
   overlapping members). Moreover, as well as these more "political"
   activities, the "affinity group" also stresses the "importance of
   education and the need to live by Anarchist precepts -- the need . . .
   to create a counter-society that could provide the space for people to
   begin to remake themselves." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 180] In other
   words, "affinity groups" aim to be the "living germs" of the new
   society in all aspects, not purely in a structurally way.

   So affinity groups are self-managed, autonomous groupings of anarchists
   who unite and work on specific activities and interests. This means
   that "[i]n an anarchist organisation the individual members can express
   any opinion and use any tactic which is not in contradiction with
   accepted principles and which does not harm the activities of others."
   [Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, p. 102] Such groups are a
   key way for anarchists to co-ordinate their activity and spread their
   message of individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. However, the
   description of what an "affinity group" is does not explain why
   anarchists organise in that way. Essentially, these affinity groups are
   the means by which anarchists actually intervene in social movements
   and struggles in order to win people to the anarchist idea and so help
   transform them from struggles against injustice into struggles for a
   free society. We will discuss the role these groups play in anarchist
   theory in [14]section J.3.6.

   These basic affinity groups are not seen as being enough in themselves.
   Most anarchists see the need for local groups to work together with
   others in a confederation. Such co-operation aims to pull resources and
   expand the options for the individuals and groups who are part of the
   federation. As with the basic affinity group, the anarchist federation
   is a self-managed organisation:

     "Full autonomy, full independence and therefore full responsibility
     of individuals and groups; free accord between those who believe it
     is useful to unite in co-operating for a common aim; moral duty to
     see through commitments undertaken and to do nothing that would
     contradict the accepted programme. It is on these bases that the
     practical structures, and the right tools to give life to the
     organisation should be built and designed. Then the groups, the
     federations of groups, the federations of federations, the meetings,
     the congresses, the correspondence committees and so forth. But all
     this must be done freely, in such a way that the thought and
     initiative of individuals is not obstructed, and with the sole view
     of giving greater effect to efforts which, in isolation, would be
     either impossible or ineffective." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 101]

   To aid in this process of propaganda, agitation, political discussion
   and development, anarchists organise federations of affinity groups.
   These take three main forms, "synthesis"
   federations (see [15]section J.3.2), "Platformist" federations (see
   [16]section J.3.3 while [17]section J.3.4 has criticism of this
   tendency) and "class struggle" groups (see [18]section J.3.5). All the
   various types of federation are based on groups of anarchists
   organising themselves in a libertarian fashion. This is because
   anarchists try to live by the values of the future to the extent that
   this is possible under capitalism and try to develop organisations
   based upon mutual aid, in which control would be exercised from below
   upward, not downward from above. We must also note here that these
   types of federation are not mutually exclusive. Synthesis type
   federations often have "class struggle" and "Platformist" groups within
   them (although, as will become clear, Platformist federations do not
   have synthesis groups within them) and most countries have different
   federations representing the different perspectives within the
   movement. Moreover, it should also be noted that no federation will be
   a totally "pure" expression of each tendency. "Synthesis" groups merge
   into "class struggle" ones, Platformist groups do not subscribe totally
   to the Platform and so on. We isolate each tendency to show its
   essential features. In real life few, if any, federations will exactly
   fit the types we highlight. It would be more precise to speak of
   organisations which are descended from a given tendency, for example
   the French Anarchist Federation is mostly influenced by the synthesis
   tradition but it is not, strictly speaking, 100% synthesis. Lastly, we
   must also note that the term "class struggle" anarchist group in no way
   implies that "synthesis" and "Platformist" groups do not support the
   class struggle or take part in it, they most definitely do -- it is
   simply a technical term to differentiate between types of organisation!

   It must be stressed anarchists do not reduce the complex issue of
   political organisation and ideas into one organisation but instead
   recognise that different threads within anarchism will express
   themselves in different political organisations (and even within the
   same organisation). A diversity of anarchist groups and federations is
   a good sign and expresses the diversity of political and individual
   thought to be expected in a movement aiming for a society based upon
   freedom. All we aim to do is to paint a broad picture of the
   similarities and differences between the various perspectives on
   organising in the movement and indicate the role these federations play
   in libertarian theory, namely of an aid in the struggle, not a new
   leadership seeking power.

J.3.2 What are "synthesis" federations?

   The "synthesis" federation acquired its name from the work of Voline (a
   Russian exile) and leading French anarchist Sebastien Faure in the
   1920s. Voline published in 1924 a paper calling for "the anarchist
   synthesis" and was also the author of the article in Faure's
   Encyclopedie Anarchiste on the very same topic. Its roots lie in the
   Russian revolution and the Nabat federation created in the Ukraine
   during 1918 whose aim was "organising all of the life forces of
   anarchism; bringing together through a common endeavour all anarchists
   seriously desiring of playing an active part in the social revolution
   which is defined as a process (of greater or lesser duration) giving
   rise to a new form of social existence for the organised masses." [No
   Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 117]

   The "synthesis" organisation is based on uniting all kinds of
   anarchists in one federation as there is, to use the words of the
   Nabat, "validity in all anarchist schools of thought. We must consider
   all diverse tendencies and accept them." The synthesis organisation
   attempts to get different kinds of anarchists "joined together on a
   number of basic positions and with the awareness of the need for
   planned, organised collective effort on the basis of federation."
   [quoted in "The Reply by Several Russian Anarchists", pp. 32-6,
   Constructive Anarchism, G. P. Maximoff (ed.), p. 32] These basic
   positions would be based on a synthesis of the viewpoints of the
   members of the organisation, but each tendency would be free to agree
   their own ideas due to the federal nature of the organisation.

   An example of this synthesis approach is provided by the differing
   assertions that anarchism is a theory of classes (as stated by the
   Platform, among others), that anarchism is a humanitarian ideal for all
   people and that anarchism is purely about individuals (and so
   essentially individualist and having nothing to do with humanity or
   with a class). The synthesis of these positions would be to "state that
   anarchism contains class elements as well as humanism and individualist
   principles . . . Its class element is above all its means of fighting
   for liberation; its humanitarian character is its ethical aspect, the
   foundation of society; its individualism is the goal of humanity." [Op.
   Cit., p. 32]

   So, as can be seen, the "synthesis" tendency aims to unite all
   anarchists (be they individualist, mutualist, syndicalist or communist)
   into one common federation. Thus the "synthesis" viewpoint is
   "inclusive" and obviously has affinities with the "anarchism without
   adjectives" approach favoured by many anarchists (see [19]section
   A.3.8). However, in practice many "synthesis" organisations are more
   restrictive (for example, they could aim to unite all social
   anarchists) and so there can be a difference between the general idea
   of the synthesis and how it is concretely applied.

   The basic idea behind the synthesis is that the anarchist movement (in
   most countries, at most times, including France in the 1920s and Russia
   during the revolution and at this time) is divided into three main
   tendencies: communist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and individualist
   anarchism. This division can cause severe damage to the movement simply
   because of the many (and often redundant) arguments and diatribes on
   why "my anarchism is best" can get in the way of working in common in
   order to fight our common enemies (state, capitalism and authority).
   The "synthesis" federations are defined by agreeing what is the common
   denominator of the various tendencies within anarchism and agreeing a
   minimum programme based on this for the federation. This would allow a
   "certain ideological and tactical unity among organisations" within the
   "synthesis" federation. [Op. Cit., p. 35] Moreover, as well as saving
   time and energy for more important tasks, there are technical and
   efficiency reasons for unifying into one organisation, namely allowing
   the movement to have access to more resources and being able to
   co-ordinate them so as to maximise their use and impact.

   The "synthesis" federation, like all anarchist groups, aims to spread
   anarchist ideas within society as a whole. They believe that their role
   is to "assist the masses only when they need such assistance . . . the
   anarchists are part of the membership in the economic and social mass
   organisations [such as trade unions]. They act and build as part of the
   whole. An immense field of action is opened to them for ideological
   [sic!], social and creative activity without assuming a position of
   superiority over the masses. Above all they must fulfil their
   ideological and ethical influence in a free and natural manner . . .
   [they] offer ideological assistance, but not in the role of leaders."
   [Op. Cit., p. 33] This, as we shall see in [20]section J.3.6, is the
   common anarchist position as regards the role of an anarchist group.

   The great strength of "synthesis" federations, obviously, is that they
   allow a wide and diverse range of viewpoints to be expressed within the
   organisation which can allow the development of political ideas and
   theories by constant discussion and debate. They allow the maximum
   amount of resources to be made available to individuals and groups
   within the organisation by increasing the number of members. This is
   why we find the original promoters of the "synthesis" arguing that
   "that first step toward achieving unity in the anarchist movement which
   can lead to serious organisation is collective ideological work on a
   series of important problems that seek the clearest possible collective
   solution," discussing "concrete questions" rather than "philosophical
   problems and abstract dissertations" and "suggest that there be a
   publication for discussion in every country where the problems in our
   ideology [sic!] and tactics can be fully discussed, regardless of how
   'acute' or even 'taboo' it may be. The need for such a printed organ,
   as well as oral discussion, seems to us to be a 'must' because it is
   the practical way to try to achieve 'ideological unity', 'tactical
   unity', and possibly organisation . . . A full and tolerant discussion
   of our problems . . . will create a basis for understanding, not only
   among anarchists, but among different conceptions of anarchism." [Op.
   Cit., p. 35]

   The "synthesis" idea for anarchist organisation was taken up by those
   who opposed the Platform (see [21]next section). For both Faure and
   Voline, the basic idea was the same, namely that the various tendencies
   in anarchism must co-operate and work in the same organisation.
   However, there are differences between Voline's and Faure's points of
   view. The latter saw these various tendencies as a wealth in themselves
   and advocated that each tendency would gain from working together in a
   common organisation. From Voline's point of view, the emergence of
   these various tendencies was historically needed to discover the
   in-depth implications of anarchism in various settings (such as the
   economical, the social and individual life). However, it was the time
   to go back to anarchism as a whole, an anarchism considerably empowered
   by what each tendency could give it, and in which tendencies as such
   should dissolve. Moreover, these tendencies co-existed in every
   anarchist at various levels, so all anarchists should aggregate in an
   organisation where these tendencies would disappear (both individually
   and organisationally, i.e. there would not be an "anarcho-syndicalist"
   specific tendency inside the organisation, and so forth).

   The "synthesis" federation would be based on complete autonomy (within
   the basic principles of the Federation and Congress decisions, of
   course) for groups and individuals, so allowing all the different
   trends to work together and express their differences in a common
   front. The various groups would be organised in a federal structure,
   combining to share resources in the struggle against state, capitalism
   and other forms of oppression. This federal structure is organised at
   the local level through a "local union" (i.e. the groups in a town or
   city), at the regional level (i.e. all groups in, say, Strathclyde are
   members of the same regional union) up to the "national" level (i.e.
   all groups in Scotland, say) and beyond.

   As every group in the federation is autonomous, it can discuss, plan
   and initiate an action (such as campaign for a reform, against a social
   evil, and so on) without having to wait for others in the federation
   (or have to wait for instructions). This means that the local groups
   can respond quickly to issues and developments. This does not mean that
   each group works in isolation. These initiatives may gain federal
   support if local groups see the need. The federation can adopt an issue
   if it is raised at a federal conference and other groups agree to
   co-operate on that issue. Moreover, each group has the freedom not to
   participate on a specific issue while leaving others to do so. Thus
   groups can concentrate on what they are interested in most.

   The programme and policies of the federation would be agreed at regular
   delegate meetings and congresses. The "synthesis" federation is managed
   at the federal level by "relations committees" made up of people
   elected and mandated at the federation congresses. These committees
   would have a purely administrative role, spreading information,
   suggestions and proposals coming from groups and individuals within the
   organisation, looking after the finances of the federation and so on.
   They do not have any more rights than any other member of the
   federation (i.e. they could not make a proposal as a committee, just as
   members of their local group or as individuals). These administrative
   committees are accountable to the federation and subject to both
   mandates and recall.

   Most national sections of the International Anarchist Federation (IFA)
   are good examples of successful federations which are heavily
   influenced by "synthesis" ideas (such as the French and Italian
   federations). Obviously, though, how effective a "synthesis" federation
   is depends upon how tolerant members are of each other and how
   seriously they take their responsibilities towards their federations
   and the agreements they make.

   Of course, there are problems with most forms of organisation, and the
   "synthesis" federation is no exception. While diversity can strengthen
   an organisation by provoking debate, a too diverse grouping can often
   make it difficult to get things done. Platformist and other critics of
   the "synthesis" federation argue that it can be turned into a talking
   shop and any common programme difficult to agree, never mind apply. For
   example, how can mutualists and communists agree on the ends, never
   mind the means, their organisation supports? One believes in
   co-operation within a (modified) market system and reforming capitalism
   away, while the other believes in the abolition of commodity production
   and money, seeing revolution as the means of so doing. Ultimately, all
   they could do would be to agree to disagree and thus any joint
   programmes and activity would be somewhat limited. It could, indeed, be
   argued that both Voline and Faure forgot essential points, namely what
   is this common denominator between the different kinds of anarchism,
   how do we achieve it and what is in it? For without this agreed common
   position, many synthesist organisations do end up becoming little more
   than talking shops, escaping from any social or organisational
   perspective. This seems to have been the fate of many groups in Britain
   and America during the 1960s and 1970s, for example.

   It is this (potential) disunity that lead the authors of the Platform
   to argue that "[s]uch an organisation having incorporated heterogeneous
   theoretical and practical elements, would only be a mechanical assembly
   of individuals each having a different conception of all the questions
   of the anarchist movement, an assembly which would inevitably
   disintegrate on encountering reality." [The Organisational Platform of
   the Libertarian Communists, p. 12] The Platform suggested "Theoretical
   and Tactical Unity" as a means of overcoming this problem, but that
   term provoked massive disagreement in anarchist circles (see
   [22]section J.3.4). In reply to the Platform, supporters of the
   "synthesis" counter by pointing to the fact that "Platformist" groups
   are usually very small, far smaller that "synthesis" federations (for
   example, compare the size of the French Anarchist Federation with, say,
   the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement or the French-language
   Alternative Libertaire). This means, they argue, that the Platform does
   not, in fact, lead to a more effective organisation, regardless of the
   claims of its supporters. Moreover, they argue that the requirements
   for "Theoretical and Tactical Unity" help ensure a small organisation
   as differences would express themselves in splits rather than
   constructive activity. Needless to say, the discussion continues within
   the movement on this issue!

   What can be said is that this potential problem within "synthesisism"
   has been the cause of some organisations failing or becoming little
   more than talking shops, with each group doing its own thing and so
   making co-ordination pointless as any agreements made would be ignored.
   Most supporters of the synthesis would argue that this is not what the
   theory aims for and that the problem lies in misunderstanding it rather
   than in the theory itself (as can be seen from mainland European,
   "synthesis" inspired federations can be very successful).
   Non-supporters are more critical, with some supporting the "Platform"
   as a more effective means of organising to spread anarchist ideas and
   influence (see the [23]next section). Other social anarchists create
   the "class struggle" type of federation (this is a common
   organisational form in Britain, for example) as discussed in
   [24]section J.3.5.

J.3.3 What is the "Platform"?

   The Platform is a current within anarcho-communism which has specific
   suggestions on the nature and form which an anarchist federation should
   take. Its roots lie in the Russian anarchist movement, a section of
   which, in 1926, published "The Organisational Platform of the
   Libertarian Communists"
   when in exile from the Bolshevik dictatorship. The authors of the work
   included Nestor Makhno, Peter Arshinov and Ida Mett. At the time it
   provoked intense debate (and still does in many anarchist circles)
   between supporters of the Platform (usually called "Platformists") and
   those who oppose it (which includes other communist-anarchists,
   anarcho-syndicalists and supporters of the "synthesis"). We will
   discuss why many anarchists oppose the Platform in the [25]next
   section. Here we discuss what the Platform argued for.

   Like the "synthesis" federation (see [26]last section), the Platform
   was created in response to the experiences of the Russian Revolution.
   The authors of the Platform (like Voline and other supporters of the
   "synthesis") had participated in that Revolution and saw all their
   work, hopes and dreams fail as the Bolshevik state triumphed and
   destroyed any chances of socialism by undermining soviet democracy,
   workers' self-management of production, trade union democracy as well
   as fundamental individual freedoms and rights (see the [27]section H.6
   for details). Moreover, the authors of the Platform had been leading
   activists in the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine which had
   successfully resisted both White and Red armies in the name of working
   class self-determination and anarchism (see the appendix [28]"Why does
   the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism? ").
   Facing the same problems of the Bolshevik government, the Makhnovists
   had actively encouraged popular self-management and organisation,
   freedom of speech and of association, and so on, whereas the Bolsheviks
   had not. Thus they were aware that anarchist ideas not only worked in
   practice, but that the claims of Leninists who maintained that
   Bolshevism (and the policies it introduced at the time) was the only
   "practical" response to the problems facing a revolution were false.

   They wrote the pamphlet in order to examine why the anarchist movement
   had failed to build on its successes in gaining influence within the
   working class. As can be seen from libertarian participation in the
   factory committee movement, where workers organised self-management in
   their workplaces and anarchist ideas had proven to be both popular and
   practical. While repression by the Bolsheviks did play a part in this
   failure, it did not explain everything. Also important, in the eyes of
   the Platform authors, was the lack of anarchist organisation before the
   revolution:

     "It is very significant that, in spite of the strength and
     incontestably positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite
     of the facing up to the social revolution, and finally the heroism
     and innumerable sacrifices borne by the anarchists in the struggle
     for anarchist communism, the anarchist movement remains weak despite
     everything, and has appeared, very often, in the history of working
     class struggles as a small event, an episode, and not an important
     factor." [Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, p.
     11]

   This weakness in the movement derived, they argued, from a number of
   causes, the main one being "the absence of organisational principles
   and practices" within the anarchist movement. This resulted in an
   anarchist movement "represented by several local organisations
   advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives
   for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually
   disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them." This
   explained the "contradiction between the positive and incontestable
   substance of libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in which the
   anarchist movement vegetates." [Op. Cit., p. 11] For anyone familiar
   with the anarchist movement in many countries, these words will still
   strike home. Thus the Platform still appears to many anarchists a
   relevant and important document, even if they are not Platformists.

   The author's of the Platform proposed a solution to this problem,
   namely the creation of a new type of anarchist organisation. This
   organisation would be based upon communist-anarchist ideas exclusively,
   while recognising syndicalism as a principal method of struggle. Like
   most anarchists, the Platform placed class and class struggle as the
   centre of their analysis, recognising that the "social and political
   regime of all states is above all the product of class struggle . . .
   The slightest change in the course of the battle of classes, in the
   relative locations of the forces of the class struggle, produces
   continuous modifications in the fabric and structure of society."
   Again, like most anarchists, the Platform aimed to "transform the
   present bourgeois capitalist society into a society which assures the
   workers the products of the labours, their liberty, independence, and
   social and political equality", one based on a "workers organisations
   of production and consumption, united federatively and
   self-administering." The "birth, the blossoming, and the realisation of
   anarchist ideas have their roots in the life and the struggle of the
   working masses and are inseparable bound to their fate." [Op. Cit., p.
   14, p. 15, p. 19 and p. 15] Again, most anarchists (particularly social
   anarchists) would agree -- anarchist ideas will (and have) wither when
   isolated from working class life since only working class people, the
   vast majority, can create a free society and anarchist ideas are
   expressions of working class experience (remove the experience and the
   ideas do not develop as they should).

   In order to create such a free society it is necessary, argue the
   Platformists, "to work in two directions: on the one hand towards the
   selection and grouping of revolutionary worker and peasant forces on a
   libertarian communist theoretical basis (a specifically libertarian
   communist organisation); on the other hand, towards regrouping
   revolutionary workers and peasants on an economic base of production
   and consumption (revolutionary workers and peasants organised around
   production [i.e. syndicalism]; workers and free peasants
   co-operatives)." Again, most anarchists would agree with this along
   with the argument that "anarchism should become the leading concept of
   revolution . . . The leading position of anarchist ideas in the
   revolution suggests an orientation of events after anarchist theory.
   However, this theoretical driving force should not be confused with the
   political leadership of the statist parties which leads finally to
   State Power." [Op. Cit., p. 20 and p. 21]

   This "leadership of ideas" (as it has come to be known) would aim at
   developing and co-ordinating libertarian feelings already existing
   within social struggle. "Although the masses," explained the Platform,
   "express themselves profoundly in social movements in terms of
   anarchist tendencies and tenets, these . . . do however remain
   dispersed, being uncoordinated, and consequently do not lead to the . .
   . preserving [of] the anarchist orientation of the social revolution."
   [Op. Cit., p. 21] The Platform argued that a specific anarchist
   organisation was required to ensure that the libertarian tendencies
   initially expressed in any social revolution or movement (for example,
   free federation, self-management in mass assemblies, mandating of
   delegates, decentralisation, etc.) do not get undermined by statists
   and authoritarians who have their own agendas. This would be done by
   actively working in mass organisation and winning people to libertarian
   ideas and practices by argument (see [29]section J.3.6).

   However, these principles do not, in themselves, determine a
   Platformist organisation. After all, most anarcho-syndicalists and
   non-Platformist communist-anarchists would agree with these positions.
   The main point which distinguishes the Platform is its position on how
   an anarchist organisation should be structured and work. This is
   sketched in the "Organisational Section," the shortest and most
   contentious part of the whole work. They called this the General Union
   of Anarchists and where they introduced the concepts of "Theoretical
   and Tactical Unity"
   and "Collective Responsibility," concepts which are unique to the
   Platform. Even today within the anarchist movement these are
   contentious ideas so it is worth exploring them in a little more
   detail.

   By "Theoretical Unity" the Platform meant any anarchist organisation
   must come to an agreement on the theory upon which it is based. In
   other words, that members of the organisation must agree on a certain
   number of basic points, such as class struggle, social revolution and
   libertarian communism, and so on. An organisation in which half the
   members thought that union struggles were important and the other half
   that they were a waste of time would not be effective as the membership
   would spend all their time arguing with themselves. While most
   Platformists admit that everyone will not agree on everything, they
   think it is important to reach as much agreement as possible, and to
   translate this into action. Once a theoretical position is reached, the
   members have to argue it in public (even if they initially opposed it
   within the organisation but they do have the right to get the decision
   of the organisation changed by internal discussion). Which brings us to
   "Tactical Unity" by which the Platform meant that the members of an
   organisation should struggle together as an organised force rather than
   as individuals. Once a strategy has been agreed by the Union, all
   members would work towards ensuring its success (even if they initially
   opposed it). In this way resources and time are concentrated in a
   common direction, towards an agreed objective.

   Thus "Theoretical and Tactical Unity" means an anarchist organisation
   that agrees specific ideas and the means of applying them. The
   Platform's basic assumption is that there is a link between coherency
   and efficiency. By increasing the coherency of the organisation by
   making collective decisions and applying them, the Platform argues that
   this will increase the influence of anarchist ideas. Without this, they
   argue, more organised groups (such as Leninist ones) would be in a
   better position to have their arguments heard and listened to than
   anarchists would. Anarchists cannot be complacent, and rely on the hope
   that the obvious strength and rightness of our ideas will shine through
   and win the day. As history shows, this rarely happens and when it
   does, the authoritarians are usually in positions of power to crush the
   emerging anarchist influence (this was the case in Russia, for
   example). Platformists argue that the world we live in is the product
   of struggles between competing ideas of how society should be organised
   and if the anarchist voice is weak, quiet and disorganised it will not
   be heard and other arguments, other perspectives, will win the day.

   Which brings us to "Collective Responsibility," which the Platform
   defines as "the entire Union will be responsible for the political and
   revolutionary activity of each member; in the same way, each member
   will be responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of the
   Union." In short, that each member should support the decisions made by
   the organisation and that each member should take part in the process
   of collective decision making process. Without this, argue
   Platformists, any decisions made will be paper ones as individuals and
   groups would ignore the agreements made by the federation (the Platform
   calls this "the tactic of irresponsible individualism"). [Op. Cit., p.
   32] With "Collective Responsibility," the strength of all the
   individuals that make up the group is magnified and collectively
   applied.

   The last principle in the "Organisational Section" of the Platform is
   "Federalism," which it defined as "the free agreement of individuals
   and organisations to work collectively towards a common objective" and
   which "reconciles the independence and initiative of individuals and
   the organisation with service to the common cause." However, the
   Platform argued that this principle has been "deformed" within the
   movement to mean the "right" to "manifest one's 'ego,' without
   obligation to account for duties as regards the organisation" one is a
   member of. In order to overcome this problem, they stress that "the
   federalist type of anarchist organisation, while recognising each
   member's rights to independence, free opinion, individual liberty and
   initiative, requires each member to undertake fixed organisation
   duties, and demands execution of communal decisions." [Op. Cit., p. 33
   and pp. 33-4]

   As part of their solution to the problem of anarchist organisation, the
   Platform suggested that each group would have "its secretariat,
   executing and guiding theoretically the political and technical work of
   the organisation." Moreover, the Platform urged the creation of an
   "executive committee of the Union" which would "be in charge" of "the
   execution of decisions taken by the Union with which it is entrusted;
   the theoretical and organisational orientation of the activity of
   isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical positions and
   the general tactical lines of the Union; the monitoring of the general
   state of the movement; the maintenance of working and organisational
   links between all the organisations in the Union; and with other
   organisation." The rights, responsibilities and practical tasks of the
   executive committee are fixed by the congress of the Union. [Op. Cit.,
   p. 34]

   This suggestion, unsurprisingly, meet with strong disapproval by most
   anarchists, as we will see in the [30]next section, who argued that
   this would turn the anarchist movement into a centralised, hierarchical
   party similar to the Bolsheviks. Needless to say, supporters of the
   Platform reject this argument and point out that the Platform itself is
   not written in stone and needs to be discussed fully and modified as
   required. In fact, few, if any, Platformist groups, do have this
   "secretariat" structure (it could, in fact, be argued that there are no
   actual "Platformist" groups, rather groups influenced by the Platform,
   namely on the issues of "Theoretical and Tactical Unity" and
   "Collective Responsibility").

   Similarly, most modern day Platformists reject the idea of gathering
   all anarchists into one organisation. The original Platform seemed to
   imply that the General Union would be an umbrella organisation, made up
   of different groups and individuals. Most Platformists would argue that
   not only will there never be one organisation which encompasses
   everyone, they do not think it necessary. Instead they envisage the
   existence of a number of organisations, each internally unified, each
   co-operating with each other where possible, a much more amorphous and
   fluid entity than a General Union of Anarchists.

   As well as the original Platform, most Platformists place the Manifesto
   of Libertarian Communism by Georges Fontenis and Towards a Fresh
   Revolution by the "Friends of Durruti" as landmark texts in the
   Platformist tradition. A few anarcho-syndicalists question this last
   claim, arguing that the "Friends of Durruti" manifesto has strong
   similarities with the CNT's pre-1936 position on revolution and thus is
   an anarcho-syndicalist document, going back to the position the CNT
   ignored after July 19th, 1936. Alexandre Skirda's book Facing the Enemy
   contains the key documents on the original Platformists (including the
   original draft Platform, supplementary documents clarifying issues and
   polemics against critiques). There are numerous Platformist and
   Platformist influenced organisations in the world today, such as the
   Irish Workers Solidarity Movement and Italian Federation of Anarchist
   Communists.

   In the [31]next section we discuss the objections that most anarchists
   have towards the Platform.

J.3.4 Why do many anarchists oppose the "Platform"?

   When the "Platform" was published it provoked a massive amount of
   debate and comment, the majority of it critical. Most of famous
   anarchists rejected the Platform. Indeed, only Nestor Makhno (who
   co-authored the work) supported its proposals, with (among others)
   Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman, Voline, G.P. Maximoff, Luigi Fabbri,
   Camilo Berneri and Errico Malatesta rejecting its suggestions on how
   anarchists should organise. Some argued that the Platform was trying to
   "Bolshevise" anarchism (""They are only one step away from bolshevism."
   ["The Reply by Several Russian Anarchists", pp. 32-6, Constructive
   Anarchism, G.P. Maximoff (ed.), pp. 36]). Others, such as Malatesta,
   suggested that the authors were too impressed by the apparent "success"
   of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Since then, it has continued to provoke a
   lot of debate in anarchist circles. So why do so many anarchists oppose
   the Platform?

   While many of the anti-Platformists made points about most parts of the
   Platform (both Maximoff and Voline pointed out that while the Platform
   denied the need of a "Transitional Period" in theory, it accepted it in
   practice, for example) the main bone of contention was found in the
   "Organisational Section" with its call for "Tactical and Theoretical
   Unity," "Collective Responsibility" and group and executive
   "secretariats" guiding the organisation. Here most anarchists found
   ideas they considered incompatible with libertarian ideas. We will
   concentrate on this issue as it is usually considered as the most
   important.

   Today, in some quarters of the libertarian movement, the Platformists
   are often dismissed as "would-be leaders." Yet this was not where
   Malatesta and other critics of the Platform took issue. Malatesta and
   Maximoff both argued that, to use Maximoff's words, anarchists should
   "go into the masses. . . , work[ing] with them, struggle for their
   soul, and attempt to win it ideologically [sic!] and give it guidance."
   So the question was "not the rejection of leadership, but making
   certain it is free and natural." [Constructive Anarchism, p. 19]
   Moreover, as Maximoff noted, the "synthesis" anarchists came to the
   same conclusion. Thus all sides of the debate accepted that anarchists
   should take the lead. The question, as Malatesta and the others saw it,
   was not whether to lead, but rather how you should lead - a fairly
   important distinction.

   Malatesta posed two alternatives, either you "provide leadership by
   advice and example leaving people themselves to . . . adopt our methods
   and solutions if these are, or seem to be, better than those suggested
   and carried out by others" or you can "direct by taking over command,
   that is by becoming a government." He asked the Platformists: "In which
   manner do you wish to direct?" While he thought, from his knowledge of
   Makhno and his work, that the answer would be the first option, he was
   "assailed by doubt that [Makhno] would also like to see, within the
   general movement, a central body that would, in an authoritarian
   manner, dictate the theoretical and practical programme for the
   revolution." This was because of the "Executive Committee" in the
   Platform which would "give ideological and organisational direction to
   the association." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 108 and p. 110]

   Maximoff made the same point, arguing that the Platform implied that
   anarchists in the unions are responsible to the anarchist federation,
   not to the union assemblies that elected them. As he put it, according
   to the Platform anarchists "are to join the Trades Unions with
   ready-made recipes and are to carry out their plans, if necessary,
   against the will of the Unions themselves." This was just one example
   of a general problem, namely that the Platform "places its Party on the
   same height as the Bolsheviks do, i.e., it places the interests of the
   Party above the interests of the masses since the Party has the
   monopoly of understanding these interests." [Constructive Anarchism, p.
   19 and p. 18] This flowed from the Platform arguing that anarchists
   must "enter into revolutionary trade unions as an organised force,
   responsible to accomplish work in the union before the general
   anarchist organisation and orientated by the latter." However,
   Maximoff's argument may be considered harsh as the Platform also argued
   that anarchism "aspires neither to political power nor dictatorship"
   and so they would hardly be urging the opposite principles within the
   trade union movement. [The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian
   Communists, p. 25 and p. 21] If we take the Platform's comments within
   a context informed by the "leadership of ideas" concept (see
   [32]section J.3.6) then what they meant was simply that the anarchist
   group would convince the union members of the validity of their ideas
   by argument which was something Maximoff did not disagree with. In
   short, the disagreement becomes one of unclear (or bad) use of language
   by the Platform's authors.

   Despite many efforts and many letters on the subject (in particular
   between Malatesta and Makhno) the question of "leadership" could not be
   clarified to either side's satisfaction, in part because there was an
   additional issue in dispute. This was the related issue of
   organisational principles (which in themselves make up the defining
   part of the original Platform). Malatesta argued that this did not
   conform with anarchist methods and principles, and so could not "help
   bring about the triumph of anarchism." [The Anarchist Revolution, p.
   97] This was because of two main reasons, the first being the issue of
   the Platform's "secretariats" and "executive committee" and the issue
   of "Collective Responsibility." We will take each in turn.

   With an structure based round "secretariats" and "executive committees"
   the "will of the [General] Union [of Anarchists] can only mean the will
   of the majority, expressed through congresses which nominate and
   control the Executive Committee and decide on all important issues.
   Naturally, the congresses would consist of representatives elected by
   the majority of member groups . . . So, in the best of cases, the
   decisions would be taken by a majority of a majority, and this could
   easily, especially when the opposing opinions are more than two,
   represent only a minority." This, Malatesta argued, "comes down to a
   pure majority system, to pure parliamentarianism" and so non-anarchist
   in nature. [Op. Cit., p. 100]

   As long as a Platformist federation is based on "secretariats" and
   "executive committees" directing the activity and development of the
   organisation, this critique is valid. In such a system, as these bodies
   control the organisation and members are expected to follow their
   decisions (due to "theoretical and tactical unity" and "collective
   responsibility") they are, in effect, the government of the
   association. While this government may be elected and accountable, it
   is still a government simply because these bodies have executive power.
   As Maximoff argued, individual initiative in the Platform "has a
   special character . . . Each organisation (i.e. association of members
   with the right to individual initiative) has its secretariat which . .
   . directs the ideological, political and technical activities of the
   organisation . . . In what, then, consists the self-reliant activities
   of the rank-and-file members? Apparently in one thing: initiative to
   obey the secretariat and carry out its directives." [Op. Cit., p. 18]
   This seems to be the logical conclusion of the structure suggested by
   the Platform. "The spirit," argued Malatesta, "the tendency remains
   authoritarian and the educational effect would remain anti-anarchist."
   [Op. Cit., p. 98]

   Malatesta, in contrast, argued that an anarchist organisation must be
   based on the "[f]ull autonomy, full independence and therefore the full
   responsibility of individuals and groups" with all organisational work
   done "freely, in such a way that the thought and initiative of
   individuals is not obstructed." The individual members of such an
   organisation "express any opinion and use any tactic which is not in
   contradiction with accepted principles and which does not harm the
   activities of others." Moreover, the administrative bodies such
   organisations nominate would "have no executive powers, have no
   directive powers" leaving it up to the groups and their federal
   meetings to decide their own fates. The congresses of such
   organisations would be "free from any kind of authoritarianism, because
   they do not lay down the law; they do not impose their own resolutions
   on others . . . and do not become binding and enforceable except on
   those who accept them." [Op. Cit., p. 101, p. 102 and p. 101] Such an
   organisation does not exclude collective decisions and self-assumed
   obligations, rather it is based upon them.

   Most groups inspired by the Platform, however, seem to reject this
   aspect of its organisational suggestions. Instead of "secretariats" and
   "executive committees" they have regular conferences and meetings to
   reach collective decisions on issues and practice unity that way. Thus
   the really important issue is of "theoretical and tactical unity" and
   "collective responsibility," rather than ithe structure suggested by
   the Platform. Indeed, this issue was the main topic in Makhno's letter
   to Malatesta, for example, and so we would be justified in saying that
   this is the key issue dividing "Platformists" from other anarchists.

   So in what way did Malatesta disagree with this concept? As we
   mentioned in the [33]last section, the Platform defined the idea of
   "Collective Responsibility" as "the entire Union will be responsible
   for the political and revolutionary activity of each member; in the
   same way, each member will be responsible for the political and
   revolutionary activity of the Union." To which Malatesta replied:

     "But if the Union is responsible for what each member does, how can
     it leave to its members and to the various groups the freedom to
     apply the common programme in the way they think best? How can one
     be responsible for an action if it does not have the means to
     prevent it? Therefore, the Union and in its name the Executive
     Committee, would need to monitor the action of the individual member
     and order them what to do and what not to do; and since disapproval
     after the event cannot put right a previously accepted
     responsibility, no-one would be able to do anything at all before
     having obtained the go-ahead, the permission of the committee. And,
     on the other hand, can an individual accept responsibility for the
     actions of a collectivity before knowing what it will do and if he
     cannot prevent it doing what he disapproves of?" [Op. Cit., p. 99]

   In other words, the term "collective responsibility" (if taken
   literally) implies a highly inefficient and somewhat authoritarian mode
   of organisation. Before any action could be undertaken, the
   organisation would have to be consulted and this would crush
   individual, group and local initiative. The organisation would respond
   slowly to developing situations, if at all, and this response would not
   be informed by first hand knowledge and experience. Moreover, this form
   of organisation implies a surrendering of individual judgement, as
   members would have to "submit to the decisions of the majority before
   they have even heard what those might be." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., 101]
   In the end, all a member could do would be to leave the organisation if
   they disagree with a tactic or position and could not bring themselves
   to further it by their actions.

   This structure also suggests that the Platform's commitment to
   federalism is in words only. As most anarchists critical of the
   Platform argued, while its authors affirm federalist principles they,
   in fact, "outline a perfectly centralised organisation with an
   Executive Committee that has responsibility to give ideological and
   organisational direction to the different anarchist organisations,
   which in turn will direct the professional organisations of the
   workers." ["The Reply by Several Russian Anarchists", Op. Cit., pp.
   35-6]

   Thus it is likely that "Collective Responsibility" taken to its logical
   conclusion would actually hinder anarchist work by being too
   bureaucratic and slow. However, let us assume that by applying
   collective responsibility as well as tactical and theoretical unity,
   anarchist resources and time will be more efficiently utilised. What is
   the point of being "efficient" if the collective decision reached is
   wrong or is inapplicable to many areas? Rather than local groups
   applying their knowledge of local conditions and developing theories
   and policies that reflect these conditions (and co-operating from the
   bottom up), they may be forced to apply inappropriate policies due to
   the "Unity" of the Platformist organisation. It is true that Makhno
   argued that the "activities of local organisations can be adapted, as
   far as possible, to suit local conditions" but only if they are
   "consonant with the pattern of the overall organisational practice of
   the Union of anarchists covering the whole country." [The Struggle
   Against the State and Other Essays, p. 62] Which still begs the
   question on the nature of the Platform's unity (however, it does
   suggest that the Platform's position may be less extreme than might be
   implied by the text, as we will discuss). That is why anarchists have
   traditionally supported federalism and free agreement within their
   organisations, to take into account the real needs of localities.

   If we do not take the Platform's definition of "Collective
   Responsibility" literally or to its logical extreme (as Makhno's
   comments suggest) then the differences between Platformists and
   non-Platformists may not be that far. As Malatesta pointed out in his
   reply to Makhno's letter:

     "I accept and support the view that anyone who associates and
     co-operates with others for a common purpose must feel the need to
     co-ordinate his [or her] actions with those of his [or her] fellow
     members and do nothing that harms the work of others . . . and
     respect the agreements that have been made . . . [Moreover] I
     maintain that those who do not feel and do not practice that duty
     should be thrown out of the association.

     "Perhaps, speaking of collective responsibility, you mean precisely
     that accord and solidarity that must exist among members of an
     association. And if that is so, your expression amounts . . . to an
     incorrect use of language, but basically it would only be an
     unimportant question of wording and agreement would soon be
     reached."
     [Op. Cit., pp. 107-8]

   This, indeed, seems to be the way that most Platformist organisations
   do operate. They have agreed broad theoretical and tactical positions
   on various subjects (such as, for example, the nature of trade unions
   and how anarchists relate to them) while leaving it to local groups to
   act within these guidelines. Moreover, the local groups do not have to
   report to the organisation before embarking on an activity. In other
   words, most Platformist groups do not take the Platform literally and
   so many differences are, to a large degree, a question of wording. As
   two supporters of the Platform note:

     "The Platform doesn't go into detail about how collective
     responsibility works in practice. There are issues it leaves
     untouched such as the question of people who oppose the majority
     view. We would argue that obviously people who oppose the view of
     the majority have a right to express their own views, however in
     doing so they must make clear that they don't represent the view of
     the organisation. If a group of people within the organisation
     oppose the majority decision they have the right to organise and
     distribute information so that their arguments can be heard within
     the organisation as a whole. Part of our anarchism is the belief
     that debate and disagreement, freedom and openness strengthens both
     the individual and the group to which she or he belongs." [Aileen
     O'Carroll and Alan MacSimoin, "The Platform", pp. 29-31, Red and
     Black Revolution, no. 4, p. 30]

   While many anarchists are critical of Platformist groups for being too
   centralised for their liking, it is the case that the Platform has
   influenced many anarchist organisations, even non-Platformist ones
   (this can be seen in the "class struggle" groups discussed in the
   [34]next section). This influence has been both ways, with the
   criticism the original Platform was subjected to having had an effect
   on how Platformist groups have developed. This, of course, does not
   imply that there is little or no difference between Platformists and
   other anarchists. Platformist groups tend to stress "collective
   responsibility" and "theoretical and tactical unity" more than others,
   which has caused problems when Platformists have worked within
   "synthesis" organisations (as was the case in France, for example,
   which resulted in much bad-feeling between Platformists and others).

   Constructive Anarchism by the leading Russian anarcho-syndicalist G.P.
   Maximoff gathers all the relevant documents in one place. As well as
   Maximoff's critique of the Platform, it includes the "synthesis" reply,
   Malatesta's review and subssequent exchange of letters between him and
   Makhno. The Anarchist Revolution also contains Malatesta's article and
   the exchange of letters between him and Makhno.

J.3.5 Are there other kinds of anarchist federation?

   Yes. Another type of anarchist federation is what we term the "class
   struggle"
   group. Many local anarchist groups in Britain, for example, organise in
   this fashion. They use the term "class struggle" to indicate that their
   anarchism is based on collective working class resistance as opposed to
   reforming capitalism via lifestyle changes and the support of, say,
   co-operatives (many "class struggle" anarchists do these things, of
   course, but they are aware that they cannot create an anarchist society
   by so doing). We follow this use of the term here. And just to stress
   the point again, our use of "class struggle" to describe this type of
   anarchist group does not imply that "synthesis" or "Platformist" do not
   support the class struggle. They do!

   This kind of group is half-way between the "synthesis" and the
   "Platform." The "class struggle" group agrees with the "synthesis" in
   so far as it is important to have a diverse viewpoints within a
   federation and that it would be a mistake to try to impose a
   common-line on different groups in different circumstances as the
   Platform does. However, like the "Platform," the class struggle group
   recognises that there is little point in creating a forced union
   between totally different strands of anarchism. Thus the "class
   struggle" group rejects the idea that individualist or mutualist
   anarchists should be part of the same organisation as anarchist
   communists or syndicalists or that anarcho-pacifists should join forces
   with non-pacifists. Thus the "class struggle" group acknowledges that
   an organisation which contains viewpoints which are dramatically
   opposed can lead to pointless debates and paralysis of action due to
   the impossibilities of overcoming those differences.

   Instead, the "class struggle" group agrees a common set of "aims and
   principles" which are the basic terms of agreement within the
   federation. If an individual or group does not agree with this
   statement then they cannot join. If they are members and try to change
   this statement and cannot get the others to agree its modification,
   then they are morally bound to leave the organisation. In other words,
   there is a framework within which individuals and groups apply their
   own ideas and their interpretation of agreed policies. It means that
   individuals in a group and the groups within a federation have
   something to base their local activity on, something which has been
   agreed collectively. There would be a common thread to activities and a
   guide to action (particularly in situations were a group or federation
   meeting cannot be called). In this way individual initiative and
   co-operation can be reconciled, without hindering either. In addition,
   the "aims and principles" shows potential members where the anarchist
   group was coming from.

   In this way the "class struggle" group solves one of the key problems
   with the "synthesis" grouping, namely that any such basic statement of
   political ideas would be hard to agree and be so watered down as to be
   almost useless (for example, a federation combining individualist and
   communist anarchists would find it impossible to agree on such things
   as the necessity for revolution, communal ownership, and so on). By
   clearly stating its ideas, the "class struggle" group ensures a common
   basis for activity and discussion.

   Such a federation, like all anarchist groups, would be based upon
   regular assemblies locally and in frequent regional, national, etc.,
   conferences to continually re-evaluate policies, tactics, strategies
   and goals. In addition, such meetings prevent power from collecting in
   the higher administration committees created to co-ordinate activity.
   The regular conferences aim to create federation policies on specific
   topics and agree common strategies. Such policies, once agreed, are
   morally binding on the membership, who can review and revise them as
   required at a later stage but cannot take action which would hinder
   their application (they do not have to apply them, if they consider
   them as a big mistake).

   For example, minorities in such a federation can pursue their own
   policies as long as they clearly state that theirs is a minority
   position and does not contradict the federation's aims and principles.
   In this way the anarchist federation combines united action and
   dissent, for no general policy will be applicable in all circumstances
   and it is better for minorities to ignore policies which they know will
   make even greater problems in their area. As long as their actions and
   policies do not contradict the federation's basic political ideas, then
   diversity is an essential means for ensuring that the best tactic and
   ideas are be identified.

J.3.6 What role do these groups play in anarchist theory?

   The aim of anarchist groups and federations is to spread libertarian
   ideas within society and within social movements. They aim to convince
   people of the validity of anarchist ideas and analysis, of the need for
   a libertarian transformation of society and of themselves by working
   with others as equals. Such groups are convinced that (to use Murray
   Bookchin's words) "anarcho-communism cannot remain a mere mood or
   tendency, wafting in the air like a cultural ambience. It must be
   organised -- indeed well-organised -- if it is effectively articulate
   and spread this new sensibility; it must have a coherent theory and
   extensive literature; it must be capable of duelling with the
   authoritarian movements that try to denature the intuitive libertarian
   impulses of our time and channel social unrest into hierarchical forms
   of organisation." [Looking Back at Spain", p. 90]

   These groups and federations play a key role in anarchist theory. This
   is because anarchists are well aware that there are different levels of
   knowledge and consciousness in society. While people learn through
   struggle and their own experiences, different people develop at
   different speeds, that each individual is unique and is subject to
   different influences. As one pamphlet by the British Anarchist
   Federation puts it, the "experiences of working class life constantly
   lead to the development of ideas and actions which question the
   established order . . . At the same time, different sections of the
   working class reach different degrees of consciousness." [The Role of
   the Revolutionary Organisation, p. 13] This can easily be seen from any
   group of individuals of the same class or even community. Some are
   anarchists, others Marxists, some social democrats/labourites, others
   conservatives, others liberals, most "apolitical," some support trade
   unions, others are against and so on.

   Because we are aware that we are one tendency among many, anarchists
   organise as anarchists to influence social struggle. Only when
   anarchists ideas are accepted by the vast majority will an anarchist
   society be possible. We wish, in other words, to win the most
   widespread understanding and influence for anarchist ideas and methods
   in the working class and in society, primarily because we believe that
   these alone will ensure a successful revolutionary transformation of
   society. Hence Malatesta:

     "anarchists, convinced of the validity of our programme, must strive
     to acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw the movement
     towards the realisation of our ideals. But such influence must be
     won by doing more and better than others, and will be useful if won
     in that way . . . we must deepen, develop and propagate our ideas
     and co-ordinate our forces in a common action. We must act within
     the labour movement to prevent it being limited to and corrupted by
     the exclusive pursuit of small improvements compatible with the
     capitalist system . . . We must work with . . . [all the] masses to
     awaken the spirit of revolt and the desire for a free and happy
     life. We must initiate and support all movements that tend to weaken
     the forces of the State and of capitalism and to raise the mental
     level and material conditions of the workers." [The Anarchist
     Revolution, p. 109]

   Anarchist organisation exists to help the process by which people come
   to anarchist conclusions. It aims to make explicit the feelings and
   thoughts that people have (such as, wage slavery is hell, that the
   state exists to oppress people and so on) by exposing as wrong common
   justifications for existing society and social relationships by a
   process of debate and providing a vision of something better. In other
   words, anarchist organisations seek to explain and clarify what is
   happening in society and show why anarchism is the only real solution
   to social problems. As part of this, we also have combat wrong ideas
   such as Liberalism, Social Democracy, Leninism, right-wing popularism
   and so on, indicating why these proposed solutions are false. In
   addition, an anarchist organisation must also be a 'collective memory'
   for the oppressed, keeping alive and developing the traditions of the
   labour and radical movements as well as anarchism so that new
   generations of libertarians have a body of experience to build upon and
   use in their struggles.

   Anarchist organisations see themselves in the role of aiders, not
   leaders. As Voline argued, the minority which is politically aware
   "should intervene. But, in every place and under all circumstances, . .
   . [they] should freely participate in the common work, as true
   collaborators, not as dictators. It is necessary that they especially
   create an example, and employ themselves . . . without dominating,
   subjugating, or oppressing anyone . . . Accordingly to the libertarian
   thesis, it is the labouring masses themselves, who, by means of the
   various class organisations, factory committees, industrial and
   agricultural unions, co-operatives, et cetera, federated . . . should
   apply themselves everywhere, to solving the problems of waging the
   Revolution . . . As for the 'elite' [i.e. the politically aware], their
   role, according to the libertarians, is to help the masses, enlighten
   them, teach them, give them necessary advice, impel them to take
   initiative, provide them with an example, and support them in their
   action -- but not to direct them governmentally." [The Unknown
   Revolution, pp. 177-8]

   This role is usually called providing a "leadership of ideas".
   Anarchists stress the difference of this concept with authoritarian
   notions of "leadership" such as Leninist ones. While both anarchist and
   Leninist organisations exist to overcome the problem of "uneven
   development" within the working class, the aims, role and structure of
   these groups could not be more different (as discussed in [35]section
   H.5, anarchists reject the assumptions and practice of vanguardism as
   incompatible with genuine socialism).

   Anarchist groups are needed for, no matter how much people change
   through struggle, it is not enough in itself (if it were, we would be
   living in an anarchist society now!). So anarchists stress, as well as
   self-organisation, self-liberation and self-education through struggle
   developing libertarian socialist thought, the need for anarchist groups
   to work within popular organisations and in the mass of the population
   in general. These groups would play an important role in helping to
   clarify the ideas of those in struggle and undermining the internal and
   external barriers against these ideas.

   The first of these are what Emma Goldman termed the "internal tyrants,"
   the "ethical and social conventions" of existing, hierarchical society
   which accustom people to authoritarian social relationships, injustice,
   lack of freedom and so on. [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 164-5] External
   barriers are what Chomsky terms "the Manufacture of Consent," the
   process by which the population at large are influenced to accept the
   status quo and the dominant elites viewpoint via the education system
   and media. It is this "manufacture of consent" which helps explain why,
   relatively speaking, there are so few anarchists even though we argue
   that anarchism is the natural product of working class life. While,
   objectively, the experiences of life drives working class people to
   resist domination and oppression, they enter that struggle with a
   history behind them, a history of education in capitalist schools, of
   consuming capitalist media, and so on.

   This means that while social struggle is radicalising, it also has to
   combat years of pro-state and pro-capitalist influences. So even if an
   anarchist consciousness springs from the real conditions of working
   class life, because we live in a class society there are numerous
   counter-tendencies that inhibit the development of that consciousness
   (such as religion, current morality, the media, pro-business and
   pro-state propaganda, state and business repression and so on). This
   explains the differences in political opinion within the working class,
   as people develop at different speeds and are subject to different
   influences and experiences. However, the numerous internal and external
   barriers to the development of anarchist opinions created our "internal
   tyrants" and by the process of "manufacturing consent" can be, and are,
   weaken by rational discussion as well as social struggle and
   self-activity. Indeed, until such time as we have "learned to defy them
   all [the internal tyrants], to stand firmly on [our] own ground and to
   insist upon [our] own unrestricted freedom" we can never be free or
   successfully combat the "manufacture of consent."
   [Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 140] And this is where the anarchist group can
   play a part, for there is an important role to be played by those who
   have been through this process already, namely to aid those going
   through it.

   Of course the activity of an anarchist group does not occur in a
   vacuum. In periods of low class struggle, where there is little
   collective action, anarchist ideas will seem utopian and so dismissed
   by most. In these situations, only a few will become anarchists simply
   because the experiences of working people do not bred confidence that
   an alternative to the current system is possible. In addition, if
   anarchist groups are small, many who are looking for an alternative may
   join other groups which are more visible and express a libertarian
   sounding rhetoric (such as Leninist groups, who often talk about
   workers' control, workers' councils and so on while meaning something
   distinctly different from what anarchists mean by these terms).
   However, as the class struggle increases and people become more
   inclined to take collective action, they can become empowered and
   radicalised by their own activity and be more open to anarchist ideas
   and the possibility of changing society. In these situations, anarchist
   groups grow and the influence in anarchist ideas increases. This
   explains why anarchist ideas are not as widespread as they could be. It
   also indicates another important role for the anarchist group, namely
   to provide an environment and space where those drawn to anarchist
   ideas can meet and share experiences and ideas during periods of
   reaction.

   The role of the anarchist group, therefore, is not to import a foreign
   ideology into the working class, but rather to help develop and clarify
   the ideas of those working class people who are moving towards
   anarchism and so aid those undergoing that development. They would aid
   this development by providing propaganda which exposes the current
   social system (and the rationales for it) as bankrupt as well as
   encouraging resistance to oppression and exploitation. The former, for
   Bakunin, allowed the "bringing [of] a more just general expression, a
   new and more congenial form to the existent instincts of the
   proletariat . . . [which] can sometimes facilitate and precipitate
   development . . . [and] give them an awareness of what they have, of
   what they feel, of what they already instinctively desire, but never
   can it give to them what they don't have." The latter "is the most
   popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda"
   and "awake[s] in the masses all the social-revolutionary instincts
   which reside deeply in the heart of every worker" so allowing instinct
   to become transformed into "reflected socialist thought." [quoted by
   Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political Thought of Michael
   Bakunin, p. 107, p. 108 and p. 141]

   To quote the UK Anarchist Federation, again "the [libertarian]
   organisation is not just a propaganda group: above all it must actively
   work in all the grassroots organisations of the working class such as
   rank and file [trade union] groups, tenants associations, squatters and
   unemployed groups as well as women's, black and gay groups." It
   "respects the independence of working class movements and (unlike]
   others) does not try to subordinate them to the revolutionary
   organisation. This does not mean that it does not seek to spread its
   ideas in these movements." [Op. Cit., p. 15 and p. 16] Such an
   organisation is not vanguardist in the Leninist sense as it recognises
   that socialist politics derive from working class experience, rather
   than bourgeois intellectuals (as Lenin and Karl Kautsky argued), and
   that it does not aim to dominate popular movements but rather work
   within them as equals.

   So while we recognise that "advanced" sections do exist within the
   working class and that anarchists are one such section, we also
   recognise that central characteristic of anarchism is that its politics
   are derived from the concrete experience of fighting capitalism and
   statism directly -- that is, from the realities of working class life.
   This means that anarchists must also learn from working class people in
   struggle. If we recognise that anarchist ideas are the product of
   working class experience and self-activity and that these constantly
   change and develop in light of new experiences and struggles then
   anarchist theory must be open to change by learning from
   non-anarchists. Not to recognise this fact is to open the door to
   vanguardism and dogma. Because of this fact, anarchists argue that the
   relationship between anarchists and non-anarchists must be an
   egalitarian one, based on mutual interaction and the recognition that
   no one is infallible or have all the answers -- including anarchists!
   With this in mind, while we recognise the presence of "advanced" groups
   within the working class (which obviously reflects the uneven
   development within it), anarchists aim to minimise such unevenness by
   the way anarchist organisations intervene in social struggle,
   intervention based on involving all in the decision making process (as
   we discuss below).

   Thus the general aim of anarchist groups is to spread ideas -- such as
   general anarchist analysis of society and current events, libertarian
   forms of organisation, direct action and solidarity and so forth -- and
   win people over to anarchism (i.e. to "make" anarchists). This involves
   both propaganda and participating as equals in social struggle and
   popular organisation. Anarchists do not think that changing leaders is
   a solution to the problem of (bad) leadership. Rather, it is a question
   of making leaders redundant by empowering all. As Malatesta argued, we
   "do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate
   themselves." Thus anarchists "advocate and practise direct action,
   decentralisation, autonomy and individual initiative; they should make
   special efforts to help members [of popular organisations] learn to
   participate directly in the life of the organisation and to dispense
   with leaders and full-time functionaries." [Errico Malatesta: His Life
   and Ideas, p. 90 and p. 125]

   This means that anarchists reject the idea that anarchist groups and
   federations must become the "leaders" of organisations. Rather, we
   desire anarchist ideas to be commonplace in society and in popular
   organisations, so that leadership by people from positions of power is
   replaced by the "natural influence" (to use Bakunin's term) of
   activists within the rank and file on the decisions made by the rank
   and file. While we will discuss Bakunin's ideas in more detail in
   [36]section J.3.7, the concept of "natural influence" can be gathered
   from this comment of Francisco Ascaso (friend of Durruti and an
   influential anarchist militant in the CNT and FAI in his own right):

     "There is not a single militant who as a 'FAIista' intervenes in
     union meetings. I work, therefore I am an exploited person. I pay my
     dues to the workers' union and when I intervene at union meetings I
     do it as someone who is exploited, and with the right which is
     granted me by the card in my possession, as do the other militants,
     whether they belong to the FAI or not." [quoted by Abel Paz,
     Durruti: The People Armed, p. 137]

   This shows the nature of the "leadership of ideas." Rather than be
   elected to a position of power or responsibility, the anarchist
   presents their ideas at mass meetings and argues his or her case. This
   means obviously implies a two-way learning process, as the anarchist
   learns from the experiences of others and the others come in contact
   with anarchist ideas. Moreover, it is an egalitarian relationship,
   based upon discussion between equals rather than urging people to place
   someone into power above them. It ensures that everyone in the
   organisation participants in making, understands and agrees with the
   decisions reached. This obviously helps the political development of
   all involved (including, we must stress, the anarchists). As Durruti
   argued: "the man [or woman] who alienates his will, can never be free
   to express himself and follow his own ideas at a union meeting if he
   feel dominated by the feeblest orator . . . As long as a man doesn't
   think for himself and doesn't assume his own responsibilities, there
   will be no complete liberation of human beings." [quoted by Paz, Op.
   Cit., p. 184]

   Because of our support for the "leadership of ideas", anarchists think
   that all popular organisations must be open, fully self-managed and
   free from authoritarianism. Only in this way can ideas and discussion
   play an important role in the life of the organisation. Since
   anarchists "do not believe in the good that comes from above and
   imposed by force" and "want the new way of life to emerge from the body
   of the people and advance as they advance. It matters to us therefore
   that all interests and opinions find their expression in a conscious
   organisation and should influence communal life in proportion to their
   importance." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 90] Bakunin's words with regards
   the first International Workers Association indicate this clearly:

     "It must be a people's movement, organised from the bottom up by the
     free, spontaneous action of the masses. There must be no secret
     governmentalism, the masses must be informed of everything . . . All
     the affairs of the International must be thoroughly and openly
     discussed without evasions and circumlocutions." [Bakunin on
     Anarchism, p. 408]

   Given this, anarchists reject the idea of turning the organs created in
   the class struggle and revolutionary process into hierarchical
   structures. By turning them from organs of self-management into organs
   for nominating "leaders," the constructive tasks and political
   development of the revolution will be aborted before they really begin.
   The active participation of all will become reduced to the picking of
   new masters and the revolution will falter. For this reason, anarchists
   "differ from the Bolshevik type of party in their belief that genuine
   revolutionaries must function within the framework of the forms created
   by the revolution, not within forms created by the party." This means
   that "an organisation is needed to propagate ideas systematically --
   and not ideas alone, but ideas which promote the concept of
   self-management." In other words, there "is a need for a revolutionary
   organisation -- but its function must always be kept clearly in mind.
   Its first task is propaganda . . . In a revolutionary situation, the
   revolutionary organisation presents the most advanced demands: it is
   prepared at every turn of events to formulate -- in the most concrete
   fashion -- the immediate task that should be performed to advance the
   revolutionary process. It provides the boldest elements in action and
   in the decision-making organs of the revolution." [Murray Bookchin,
   Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 140] What it does not do is to supplant
   those organs or decision-making process by creating institutionalised,
   hierarchical leadership structures.

   Equally as important as how anarchists intervene in social struggles
   and popular organisations and the organisation of those struggles and
   organisations, there is the question of the nature of that
   intervention. We would like to quote the following by the British
   libertarian socialist group Solidarity as it sums up the underlying
   nature of anarchist action and the importance of a libertarian
   perspective on social struggle and change and how politically aware
   minorities work within them:

     "Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the
     confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the
     solidarity, the egalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the
     masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and
     harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses,
     their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through
     hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things
     for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated
     by others -- even by those allegedly acting on their behalf."
     [Maurice Brinton, For Workers' Power, p. 154]

   Part of this "meaningful action" involves encouraging people to "act
   for yourselves" (to use Kropotkin's words). As we noted in [37]section
   A.2.7, anarchism is based on self-liberation and self-activity is key
   aspect of this. Hence Malatesta's argument:

     "Our task is that of 'pushing' the people to demand and to seize all
     the freedom they can and to make themselves responsible for
     providing their own needs without waiting for orders from any kind
     of authority. Our task is that of demonstrating the uselessness and
     harmfulness of government, provoking and encouraging by propaganda
     and action, all kinds of individual and collective activities.

     "It is in fact a question of education for freedom, of making people
     who are accustomed to obedience and passivity consciously aware of
     their real power and capabilities. One must encourage people to do
     things for themselves." [Op. Cit., pp. 178-9]

   This "pushing" people to "do it themselves" is another key role for any
   anarchist organisation. The encouragement of direct action is just as
   important as anarchist propaganda and popular participation within
   social struggle and popular organisations.

   As such social struggle developments, the possibility of revolution
   becomes closer and closer. While we discuss anarchists ideas on social
   revolution in [38]section J.7, we must note here that the role of the
   anarchist organisation does not change. As Bookchin argued, anarchists
   "seek to persuade the factory committees, assemblies" and other
   organisations created by people in struggle "to make themselves into
   genuine organs of popular self-management, not to dominate them,
   manipulate them, or hitch them to an all-knowing political party." [Op.
   Cit., p. 140] In this way, by encouraging self-management in struggle,
   anarchist lay the foundations of a self-managed society.

J.3.7 Doesn't Bakunin's "Invisible Dictatorship" prove that anarchists are
secret authoritarians?

   No. While Bakunin did use the term "invisible dictatorship", it does
   not prove that Bakunin or anarchists are secret authoritarians. The
   claim otherwise, often made by Leninists and other Marxists, expresses
   a distinct, even wilful, misunderstanding of Bakunin's ideas on the
   role revolutionaries should play in popular movements.

   Marxists quote Bakunin's terms "invisible dictatorship" and "collective
   dictatorship" out of context, using it to "prove" that anarchists are
   secret authoritarians, seeking dictatorship over the masses. More
   widely, the question of Bakunin and his "invisible dictatorship" finds
   its way into sympathetic accounts of anarchist ideas. For example,
   Peter Marshall writes that it is "not difficult to conclude that
   Bakunin's invisible dictatorship would be even more tyrannical than a .
   . . Marxist one" and that it expressed a "profound authoritarian and
   dissimulating streak in his life and work." [Demanding the Impossible,
   p. 287] So, the question of setting the record straight about this
   aspect of Bakunin's theory is of more importance than just correcting a
   few Leninists. In addition, to do so will help clarify the concept of
   "leadership of ideas" we discussed in the [39]last section. For both
   these reasons, this section, while initially appearing somewhat
   redundant and of interest only to academics, is of a far wider
   interest.

   Anarchists have two responses to claims that Bakunin (and, by
   implication, all anarchists) seek an "invisible" dictatorship and so
   are not true libertarians. Firstly, and this is the point we will
   concentrate upon in this section, Bakunin's expression is taken out of
   context and when placed within context it takes on a radically
   different meaning than that implied by critics of anarchism. Secondly,
   even if the expression means what the critics claim it does, it does
   not refute anarchism as a political theory. This is because anarchists
   are not Bakuninists (or Proudhonists or Kropotkinites or any other
   person-ist). We recognise other anarchists for what they are, human
   beings who said lots of important and useful things but, like any other
   human being, made mistakes and often do not live up to all of their
   ideas. For anarchists, it is a question of extracting the useful parts
   from their works and rejecting the useless (as well as the downright
   nonsense!). Just because Bakunin said something, it does not make it
   right! This common-sense approach to politics seems to be lost on
   Marxists. Indeed, if we take the logic of these Marxists to its
   conclusion, we must reject everything Rousseau wrote (he was sexist),
   Marx and Engels (their comments against Slavs spring to mind, along
   with numerous other racist comments) and so on. But, of course, this
   never happens to non-anarchist thinkers when Marxists write their
   articles and books.

   However, to return to our main argument, that of the importance of
   context. Significantly, whenever Bakunin uses the term "invisible" or
   "collective" dictatorship he also explicitly states his opposition to
   government power and in particular the idea that anarchists should
   seize it. For example, a Leninist quotes the following passage from "a
   Bakuninist document" to show "the dictatorial ambitions of Bakunin" and
   that the "principle of anti-democracy was to leave Bakunin unchallenged
   at the apex of power": "It is necessary that in the midst of popular
   anarchy, which will constitute the very life and energy of the
   revolution, unity of thought and revolutionary action should find an
   organ. This organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the
   international brethren." [Derek Howl, "The legacy of Hal Draper", pp.
   137-49, International Socialist, no. 52, p. 147]

   However, in the sentence immediately before those quoted, Bakunin
   stated that "[t]his organisation rules out any idea of dictatorship and
   custodial control." Strange that this part of the document was not
   quoted! Nor is Bakunin quoted when he wrote, in the same document, that
   "[w]e are the natural enemies of those revolutionaries -- future
   dictators, regimentors and custodians of revolution -- who . . . [want]
   to create new revolutionary States just as centralist and despotic as
   those we already know." Not mentioned either is Bakunin's opinion that
   the "revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme
   control must always belong to the people organised into a free
   federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised
   from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary delegations . . .
   [who] will set out to administer public services, not to rule over
   peoples." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 172, p. 169 and p.
   172] Selective quoting is only convincing to those ignorant of the
   subject.

   Similarly, when we look at the situations where Bakunin uses the terms
   "invisible" or "collective" dictatorship (usually in letters to
   comrades) we find the same thing -- the explicit denial in these same
   letters that Bakunin thought the revolutionary association should take
   governmental power. For example, in a letter to Albert Richard (a
   fellow member of the "Alliance of Social Democracy") Bakunin stated
   that "[t]here is only one power and one dictatorship whose organisation
   is salutary and feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship
   of those who are allied in the name of our principle." He then
   immediately adds that "this dictatorship will be all the more salutary
   and effective for not being dressed up in any official power or
   extrinsic character." Earlier in the letter he argued that anarchists
   must be "like invisible pilots in the thick of the popular tempest. . .
   steer[ing] it [the revolution] not by any open power but by the
   collective dictatorship of all the allies -- a dictatorship without
   insignia, titles or official rights, and all the stronger for having
   none of the paraphernalia of power." Explicitly opposing "Committees of
   Public Safety and official, overt dictatorship" he explains his idea of
   a revolution based on "workers hav[ing] joined into associations . . .
   armed and organised by streets and quartiers, the federative commune."
   [Op. Cit., p. 181, p. 180 and p. 179] Hardly what would be expected
   from a would-be dictator. As Sam Dolgoff suggested:

     "an organisation exercising no overt authority, without a state,
     without official status, without the machinery of institutionalised
     power to enforce its policies, cannot be defined as a dictatorship .
     . . Moreover, if it is borne in mind that this passage is part of a
     letter repudiating in the strongest terms the State and the
     authoritarian statism of the 'Robespierres, the Dantons, and the
     Saint-Justs of the revolution,' it is reasonable to conclude that
     Bakunin used the word 'dictatorship' to denote preponderant
     influence or guidance exercised largely by example . . . In line
     with this conclusion, Bakunin used the words 'invisible' and
     'collective' to denote the underground movement exerting this
     influence in an organised manner." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 182]

   This analysis is confirmed by other passages from Bakunin's letters. In
   a letter to the Nihilist Sergi Nechaev (within which Bakunin indicates
   exactly how far apart politically they were -- which is important as,
   from Marx onwards, many of Bakunin's opponents quote Nechaev's
   pamphlets as if they were "Bakuninist," when in fact they were not) we
   find him arguing that:

     "These [revolutionary] groups would not seek anything for
     themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power . . . [but] would
     be in a position to direct popular movements . . . and lead the
     people towards the most complete realisation of the social-economic
     ideal and the organisation of the fullest popular freedom. This is
     what I call the collective dictatorship of a secret organisation.

     "The dictatorship . . . does not reward any of the members that
     comprise the groups, or the groups themselves, with any profit or
     honour or official power. It does not threaten the freedom of the
     people, because, lacking any official character, it does not take
     the place of State control over the people, and because its whole
     aim . . . consists of the fullest realisation of the liberty of the
     people.

     "This sort of dictatorship is not in the least contrary to the free
     development and the self-development of the people, nor its
     organisation from the bottom upward . . . for it influences the
     people exclusively through the natural, personal influence of its
     members, who have not the slightest power, . . . and . . . try . . .
     to direct the spontaneous revolutionary movement of the people
     towards . . . the organisation of popular liberty . . . This secret
     dictatorship would in the first place, and at the present time,
     carry out a broadly based popular propaganda . . . and by the power
     of this propaganda and also by organisation among the people
     themselves join together separate popular forces into a mighty
     strength capable of demolishing the State." [Michael Bakunin:
     Selected Writings, pp. 193-4]

   The key aspect of this is the notion of "natural" influence. In a
   letter to a Spanish member of the Alliance we find Bakunin arguing that
   it "will promote the Revolution only through the natural but never
   official influence of all members of the Alliance." [Bakunin on
   Anarchism, p. 387] This term was also used in his public writings, with
   Bakunin arguing that the "very freedom of every individual results from
   th[e] great number of material, intellectual, and moral influences
   which every individual around him and which society . . . continually
   exercise on him" and that "everything alive . . . intervene[s] . . . in
   the life of others . . . [so] we hardly wish to abolish the effect of
   any individual's or any group of individuals' natural influence upon
   the masses." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 140 and p. 141]

   Thus "natural influence" simply means the effect of communicating which
   others, discussing your ideas with them and winning them over to your
   position, nothing more. This is hardly authoritarian, and so Bakunin
   contrasts this "natural" influence with "official" influence, which
   replaced the process of mutual interaction between equals with a fixed
   hierarchy of command and thereby induced the "transformation of natural
   influence, and, as such, the perfectly legitimate influence over man,
   into a right." [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political
   Thought of Michael Bakunin, p. 46]

   As an example of this difference, consider the case of a union militant
   (as will become clear, this is the sort of example Bakunin had in
   mind). As long as they are part of the rank-and-file, arguing their
   case at union meetings or being delegated to carry out the decisions of
   these assemblies then their influence is "natural." However, if this
   militant is elected into a position with executive power in the union
   (i.e. becomes a full-time union official, for example, rather than a
   shop-steward) then their influence becomes "official" and so,
   potentially, corrupting for both the militant and the rank-and-file who
   are subject to the rule of the official.

   Indeed, this notion of "natural" influence was also termed "invisible"
   by Bakunin: "It is only necessary that one worker in ten join the
   [International Working-Men's] Association earnestly and with full
   understanding of the cause for the nine-tenths remaining outside its
   organisation nevertheless to be influenced invisibly by it." [The Basic
   Bakunin, p. 139] So, as can be seen, the terms "invisible" and
   "collective" dictatorship used by Bakunin in his letters is strongly
   related to the term "natural influence" used in his public works and
   seems to be used simply to indicate the effects of an organised
   political group on the masses. To see this, it is worthwhile to quote
   Bakunin at length about the nature of this "invisible" influence:

     "It may be objected that this . . . influence on the popular masses
     suggests the establishment of a system of authority and a new
     government . . . Such a belief would be a serious blunder. The
     organised effect of the International on the masses . . . is nothing
     but the entirely natural organisation -- neither official nor
     clothed in any authority or political force whatsoever -- of the
     effect of a rather numerous group of individuals who are inspired by
     the same thought and headed toward the same goal, first of all on
     the opinion of the masses and only then, by the intermediary of this
     opinion (restated by the International's propaganda), on their will
     and their deeds. But the governments . . . impose themselves
     violently on the masses, who are forced to obey them and to execute
     their decrees . . . The International's influence will never be
     anything but one of opinion and the International will never be
     anything but the organisation of the natural effect of individuals
     on the masses." [Op. Cit., pp. 139-40]

   Therefore, from both the fuller context provided by the works and
   letters selectively quoted by Marxists and his other writings, we find
   that rather than being a secret authoritarian, Bakunin was, in fact,
   trying to express how anarchists could "naturally influence" the masses
   and their revolution:

     "We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of official power
     . . . We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared
     dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists . . . if we are
     anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and
     what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort of
     power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people's
     revolution? By a force that is invisible . . . that is not imposed
     on anyone . . . [and] deprived of all official rights and
     significance." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 191-2]

   Continually opposing "official" power, authority and influence, Bakunin
   used the term "invisible, collective dictatorship" to describe the
   "natural influence" of organised anarchists on mass movements. Rather
   than express a desire to become a dictator, it in fact expresses the
   awareness that there is an "uneven" political development within the
   working class, an unevenness that can only be undermined by discussion
   within the mass assemblies of popular organisations. Any attempt to
   by-pass this "unevenness" by seizing or being elected to positions of
   power (i.e. by "official influence") would be doomed to failure and
   result in dictatorship by a party -- "triumph of the Jacobins or the
   Blanquists [or the Bolsheviks, we must add] would be the death of the
   Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 169]

   So rather than seek power, the anarchists would seek influence based on
   the soundness of their ideas, what anarchists today term the
   "leadership of ideas" in other words. Thus the anarchist federation
   "unleashes their [the peoples] will and gives wider opportunity for
   their self-determination and their social-economic organisation, which
   should be created by them alone from the bottom upwards . . . The
   [revolutionary] organisation . . . [must] not in any circumstances . .
   . ever be their master . . . What is to be the chief aim and pursue of
   this organisation? To help the people towards self-determination on the
   lines of the most complete equality and fullest human freedom in every
   direction, without the least interference from any sort of domination .
   . . that is without any sort of government control." [Op. Cit., p. 191]

   This analysis can be seen from Bakunin's discussion on union
   bureaucracy and how anarchists should combat it. Taking the Geneva
   section of the IWMA, Bakunin notes that the construction workers'
   section "simply left all decision-making to their committees . . . In
   this manner power gravitated to the committees, and by a species of
   fiction characteristic of all governments the committees substituted
   their own will and their own ideas for that of the membership." To
   combat this bureaucracy, the union "sections could only defend their
   rights and their autonomy in only one way: the workers called general
   membership meetings. Nothing arouses the antipathy of the committees
   more than these popular assemblies . . . In these great meetings of the
   sections, the items on the agenda was amply discussed and the most
   progressive opinion prevailed." Given that Bakunin considered "the
   federative Alliance of all the workers' associations" would "constitute
   the Commune" by means of delegates with "always responsible, and
   revocable mandates", we can easily see that the role of the anarchist
   federation would be to intervene in general assemblies of these
   associations and ensure, through debate, that the most progressive
   opinion prevailed. [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 246, p. 247 and p. 153]

   Having shown that the role of Bakunin's revolutionary organisations is
   drastically different than that suggested by the selective quotations
   of Marxists, we need to address two more issues. One, the so-called
   hierarchical nature of Bakunin's organisations and, two, their secret
   nature. Taking the issue of hierarchy first, we can do no better than
   quote Richard B. Saltman's summary of the internal organisation of
   these groups:

     "The association's 'single will,' Bakunin wrote, would be determined
     by 'laws' that every member 'helped to create,' or at a minimum
     'equally approved' by 'mutual agreement.' This 'definite set of
     rules' was to be 'frequently renewed' in plenary sessions wherein
     each member had the 'duty to try and make his view prevail,' but
     then he must accept fully the decision of the majority. Thus the
     revolutionary association's 'rigorously conceived and prescribed
     plan,' implemented under the 'strictest discipline,' was in reality
     to be 'nothing more or less than the expression and direct outcome
     of the reciprocal commitment contracted by each of the members
     towards the others.'" [Op. Cit., p. 115]

   While many anarchists would not totally agree with this set-up
   (although we think that most supporters of the "Platform" would) all
   would agree that it is not hierarchical. If anything, it appears quite
   democratic in nature. Moreover, comments in Bakunin's letters to other
   Alliance members support the argument that his revolutionary
   associations were more democratic in nature than Marxists suggest. In a
   letter to a Spanish comrade we find him suggesting that "all [Alliance]
   groups. . . should. . . from now on accept new members not by majority
   vote, but unanimously." [

   Op. Cit.
   , p. 386] In a letter to Italian members of the IWMA he argued that in
   Geneva the Alliance did not resort to "secret plots and intrigues."
   Rather:

     "Everything was done in broad daylight, openly, for everyone to see
     . . . The Alliance had regular weekly open meetings and everyone was
     urged to participate in the discussions . . . The old procedure
     where members sat and passively listened to speakers talking down to
     them from their pedestal was discarded.

     "It was established that all meetings be conducted by informal
     round-table conversational discussions in which everybody felt free
     to participate: not to be talked at, but to exchange views." [Op.
     Cit., pp. 405-6]

   Moreover, we find Bakunin being out-voted within the Alliance, hardly
   what we would expect if they were top-down dictatorships run by him as
   Marxists claim. The historian T.R. Ravindranathan indicates that after
   the Alliance was founded "Bakunin wanted the Alliance to become a
   branch of the International [Worker's Association] and at the same time
   preserve it as a secret society. The Italian and some French members
   wanted the Alliance to be totally independent of the IWA and objected
   to Bakunin's secrecy. Bakunin's view prevailed on the first question as
   he succeeded in convincing the majority of the harmful effects of a
   rivalry between the Alliance and the International. On the question of
   secrecy, he gave way to his opponents." [Bakunin and the Italians, p.
   83]

   Moreover, if Bakunin did seek to create a centralised, hierarchical
   organisation, as Marxists claim, he did not do a good job. We find him
   complaining that the Madrid Alliance was breaking up ("The news of the
   dissolution of the Alliance in Spain saddened Bakunin. he intensified
   his letter-writing to Alliance members whom he trusted . . . He tried
   to get the Spaniards to reverse their decision" [Juan Gomez Casa,
   Anarchist Organisation, pp. 37-8]). While the "Bakuninist" Spanish and
   Swiss sections of the IWMA sent delegates to its infamous Hague
   congress, the "Bakuninist" Italian section did not. Of course, Marxists
   could argue that these facts show Bakunin's cunning nature, but the
   more obvious explanation is that Bakunin did not create a hierarchical
   organisation with himself at the top.

   The evidence suggests that the Alliance "was not a compulsory or
   authoritarian body." In Spain, it "acted independently and was prompted
   by purely local situations. The copious correspondence between Bakunin
   and his friends . . . was at all times motivated by the idea of
   offering advice, persuading, and clarifying. It was never written in a
   spirit of command, because that was not his style, nor would it have
   been accepted as such by his associates." Moreover, there "is no trace
   or shadow or hierarchical organisation in a letter from Bakunin to Mora
   . . . On the contrary, Bakunin advises 'direct' relations between
   Spanish and Italian Comrades." The Spanish comrades also wrote a
   pamphlet which "ridiculed the fable of orders from abroad." [Casa, Op.
   Cit., p. 25 and p. 40] This is confirmed by George R. Esenwein who
   argues that "[w]hile it is true that Bakunin's direct intervention
   during the early days of the International's development in Spain had
   assured the pre-dominance of his influence in the various federations
   and sections" of the organisation, "it cannot be said that he
   manipulated it or otherwise used the Spanish Alliance as a tool for his
   own subversive designs." Thus, "though the Alliance did exist in Spain,
   the society did not bear any resemblance to the nefarious organisation
   that the Marxists depicted." [Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class
   Movement in Spain, p. 42] Indeed, as Max Nettlau points out, those
   Spaniards who did break with the Alliance were persuaded of its
   "hierarchical organisation . . . not by their own direct observation,
   but by what they had been told about the conduct of the organisation"
   in other countries. [quoted by Casa, Op. Cit., pp. 39-40]. In addition,
   if Bakunin did run the Alliance under his own personal dictatorship we
   would expect it to change or dissolve upon his death. However, "the
   Spanish Alliance survived Bakunin, who died in 1876, yet with few
   exceptions it continued to function in much the same way it had during
   Bakunin's lifetime." [Esenwein, Op. Cit., p. 43]

   Moving on to the second issue, the question of why Bakunin favoured
   secret organisation. At the time many states where despotic monarchies,
   with little or no civil rights. As he argued, "nothing but a secret
   society would want to take this [arousing a revolution] on, for the
   interests of the government and of the government classes would be
   bitterly opposed to it." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 188]
   For survival, Bakunin considered secrecy an essential. As Juan Gomez
   Casas noted: "In view of the difficulties of that period, Bakunin
   believed that secret groups of convinced and absolutely trustworthy men
   were safer and more effective. They would be able to place themselves
   at the head of developments at critical moments, but only to inspire
   and to clarify the issues." [Op. Cit., p. 22] Even Marxists, faced with
   dictatorial states, have organised in secret and as George R. Esenwein
   points out, the "claim that Bakunin's organisation scheme was not the
   product of a 'hard-headed realism' cannot be supported in the light of
   the experiences of the Spanish Alliancists. It is beyond doubt that
   their adherence to Bakunin's program greatly contributed to the FRE's
   [Spanish section of the First International] ability to flourish during
   the early part of the 1870s and to survive the harsh circumstances of
   repression in the period 1874-1881." [Op. Cit., p. 224f] So Bakunin's
   personal experiences in Tsarist Russia and other illiberal states
   shaped his ideas on how revolutionaries should organise (and let us not
   forget that he had been imprisoned in the Peter and Paul prison for his
   activities).

   This is not to suggest that all of Bakunin's ideas on the role and
   nature of anarchist groups are accepted by anarchists today. Most
   anarchists would reject Bakunin's arguments for secrecy, for example
   (particularly as secrecy cannot help but generate an atmosphere of
   deceit and, potentially, manipulation). Anarchists remember that
   anarchism did not spring fully formed and complete from Bakunin's (or
   any other individual's) head. Rather it was developed over time and by
   many individuals, inspired by many different experiences and movements.
   As such, anarchists recognise that Bakunin was inconsistent in some
   ways, as would be expected from a theorist breaking new ground, and
   this applies to his ideas on how anarchist groups should work within
   and the role they should play in popular movements. Most of his ideas
   are valid, once we place them into context, some are not. Anarchists
   embrace the valid ones and voice their opposition to the others.

   In summary, any apparent contradiction between the "public" and
   "private" Bakunin disappears once we place his comments into context
   within both the letters he wrote and his overall political theory. As
   Brian Morris argues, those who argue that Bakunin was in favour of
   despotism only come to "these conclusions by an incredible distortion
   of the substance of what Bakunin was trying to convey in his letters to
   Richard and Nechaev" and "[o]nly the most jaundiced scholar, or one
   blinded by extreme antipathy towards Bakunin or anarchism, could
   interpret these words as indicating that Bakunin conception of a secret
   society implied a revolutionary dictatorship in the Jacobin sense,
   still less a 'despotism'" [Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 144
   and p. 149]

J.3.8 What is anarcho-syndicalism?

   Anarcho-syndicalism (as mentioned in [40]section A.3.2) is a form of
   anarchism which applies itself (primarily) to creating industrial
   unions organised in an anarchist manner, using anarchist tactics (such
   as direct action) to create a free society. To quote "The Principles of
   Revolutionary Syndicalism" of the International Workers Association:

     "Revolutionary Syndicalism is that movement of the working classes
     founded on the basis of class war, which strives for the union of
     manual and intellectual workers in economic fighting organisations,
     in order to prepare for and realise in practice their liberation
     from the yoke of wage-slavery and state oppression. Its goal is the
     reorganisation of social life on the basis of free communism through
     the collective revolutionary action of the working classes
     themselves. It takes the view that only the economic organisations
     of the proletariat are appropriate for the realisation of this task
     and turns therefore to the workers in their capacity as producers
     and generators of social value, in opposition to the modern
     political labour parties, which for constructive economic purpose do
     not come into consideration." [quoted by Wayne Thorpe, "The Workers
     Themselves", p. 322]

   The word "syndicalism" is an English rendering of the French for
   "revolutionary trade unionism" ("syndicalisme revolutionarie"). In the
   1890s many anarchists in France started to work within the trade union
   movement, radicalising it from within. As the ideas of autonomy, direct
   action, the general strike and political independence of unions which
   where associated with the French Confederation Generale du Travail
   (CGT, or General Confederation of Labour) spread across the world
   (partly through anarchist contacts, partly through word of mouth by
   non-anarchists who were impressed by the militancy of the CGT), the
   word "syndicalism" was used to describe movements inspired by the
   example of the CGT. Thus "syndicalism," "revolutionary syndicalism" and
   "anarcho-syndicalism" all basically mean "revolutionary unionism" (the
   term "industrial unionism" used by the IWW essentially means the same
   thing).

   The main difference is between revolutionary syndicalism and
   anarcho-syndicalism, with anarcho-syndicalism arguing that
   revolutionary syndicalism concentrates too much on the workplace and,
   obviously, stressing the anarchist roots and nature of syndicalism more
   than the former. In addition, anarcho-syndicalism is often considered
   compatible with supporting a specific anarchist organisation to
   complement the work of the revolutionary unions. Revolutionary
   syndicalism, in contrast, argues that the syndicalist unions are
   sufficient in themselves to create libertarian socialism and rejects
   anarchist groups along with political parties. However, the dividing
   line can be unclear and, just to complicate things even more, some
   syndicalists support political parties and are not anarchists (there
   have been a few Marxist syndicalists, for example) but we will ignore
   these in our discussion. We will use the term syndicalism to describe
   what each branch has in common.

   The syndicalist union is a self-managed industrial union (see
   [41]section J.5.2) which is committed to direct action and refuses
   links with political parties, even labour or "socialist" ones. A key
   idea of syndicalism is that of union autonomy -- the idea that the
   workers' organisation is capable of changing society by its own
   efforts, that it must control its own fate and not be controlled by any
   party or other outside group (including anarchist federations). This is
   sometimes termed "workerism"
   (from the French "ouverierisme"), i.e. workers' control of the class
   struggle and their own organisations. Rather than being a cross-class
   organisation like the political party, the union is a class
   organisation and is so uniquely capable of representing working class
   aspirations, interests and hopes. "The syndicat," Emile Pouget wrote,
   "groups together those who work against those who live by human
   exploitation: it brings together interests and not opinions." [quoted
   by Jeremy Jennings, Syndicalism in France, pp. 30-1] There is, then,
   "no place in it for anybody who was not a worker. Professional middle
   class intellectuals who provided both the leadership and the ideas of
   the socialist political movement, were therefore at a discount. As a
   consequence the syndicalist movement was, and saw itself as, a purely
   working class form of socialism." Syndicalism "appears as the great
   heroic movement of the proletariat, the first movement which took
   seriously" the argument "that the emancipation of the working class
   must be the task of labour unaided by middle class intellectuals or by
   politicians and aimed to establish a genuinely working class socialism
   and culture, free of all bourgeois taints. For the syndicalists, the
   workers were to be everything, the rest, nothing." [Geoffrey
   Ostergaard, The Tradition of Workers' Control, p. 38]

   Therefore syndicalism is "consciously anti-parliamentary and
   anti-political. It focuses not only on the realities of power but also
   on the key problem of achieving its disintegration. Real power in
   syndicalist doctrine is economic power. The way to dissolve economic
   power is to make every worker powerful, thereby eliminating power as a
   social privilege. Syndicalism thus ruptures all the ties between the
   workers and the state. It opposes political action, political parties,
   and any participant in political elections. Indeed it refuses to
   operate in the framework of the established order and the state. It
   "turns to direct action -- strikes, sabotage, obstruction, and above
   all, the revolutionary general strike. Direct action not only
   perpetuates the militancy of the workers and keeps alive the spirit of
   revolt, but awakens in them a greater sense of individual initiative.
   By continual pressure, direct action tests the strength of the
   capitalist system at all times and presumably in its most important
   arena -- the factory, where ruled and ruler seem to confront each other
   most directly." [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 121]

   This does not mean that syndicalism is "apolitical" in the sense of
   ignoring totally all political issues. This is a Marxist myth.
   Syndicalists follow other anarchists by being opposed to all forms of
   authoritarian/capitalist politics but do take a keen interest in
   "political" questions as they relate to the interests of working
   people. Thus they do not "ignore" the state, or the role of the state.
   Indeed, syndicalists (like all libertarians) are well aware that the
   state exists to protect capitalist property and power and that we need
   to combat it as well as fight for economic improvements. In short,
   syndicalism is deeply political in the widest sense of the word, aiming
   for a radical change in political, economic and social conditions and
   institutions. Moreover, it is political in the narrower sense of being
   aware of political issues and aiming for political reforms along with
   economic ones. It is only "apolitical" when it comes to supporting
   political parties and using bourgeois political institutions, a
   position which is "political" in the wider sense of course! This is
   obviously identical to the usual anarchist position (see [42]section
   J.2.10).

   Which indicates an importance difference between syndicalism and trade
   unionism. Syndicalism aims at changing society rather than just working
   within it. Thus syndicalism is revolutionary while trade unionism is
   reformist. For syndicalists the union "has a double aim: with tireless
   persistence, it must pursue betterment of the working class's current
   conditions. But, without letting themselves become obsessed with this
   passing concern, the workers should take care to make possible and
   imminent the essential act of comprehensive emancipation: the
   expropriation of capital." Thus syndicalism aims to win reforms by
   direct action and by this struggle bring the possibilities of a
   revolution, via the general strike, closer. Indeed any "desired
   improvement is to be wrested directly from the capitalist" and "must
   always represent a reduction in capitalist privileges and be a partial
   expropriation." [Emile Pouget, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 71 and
   p. 73] Thus Emma Goldman:

     "Of course Syndicalism, like the old trade unions, fights for
     immediate gains, but it is not stupid enough to pretend that labour
     can expect humane conditions from inhumane economic arrangements in
     society. Thus it merely wrests from the enemy what it can force him
     to yield; on the whole, however, Syndicalism aims at, and
     concentrates its energies upon, the complete overthrow of the wage
     system.

     "Syndicalism goes further: it aims to liberate labour from every
     institution that has not for its object the free development of
     production for the benefit of all humanity. In short, the ultimate
     purpose of Syndicalism is to reconstruct society from its present
     centralised, authoritative and brutal state to one based upon the
     free, federated grouping of the workers along lines of economic and
     social liberty.

     "With this object in view, Syndicalism works in two directions:
     first, by undermining the existing institutions; secondly, by
     developing and educating the workers and cultivating their spirit of
     solidarity, to prepare them for a full, free life, when capitalism
     shall have been abolished.

     "Syndicalism is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism."
     [Red Emma Speaks, p. 91]

   Which, in turn, explains why syndicalist unions are structured in such
   an obviously libertarian way. It reflects the importance of empowering
   every worker by creating a union which is decentralised and
   self-managed, a union which every member plays a key role in
   determining its policy and activities. Participation ensures that the
   union becomes a "school for the will" (to use Pouget's expression) and
   allows working people to learn how to govern themselves and so do
   without the state. After the revolution, the union can easily be
   transformed into the body by which production is organised. The aim of
   the union is workers' self-management of production and distribution
   after the revolution, a self-management which the union is based upon
   in the here and now. The syndicalist union is seen as "the germ of the
   Socialist economy of the future, the elementary school of Socialism in
   general" and we need to "plant these germs while there is yet time and
   bring them to the strongest possible development, so as to make the
   task of the coming social revolution easier and to insure its
   permanence." [Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 59]

   Thus, as can be seen, syndicalism differs from trade unionism in its
   structure, its methods and its aims. Its structure, method and aims are
   distinctly anarchist. Little wonder leading syndicalist theorist
   Fernand Pelloutier argued that the trade union, "governing itself along
   anarchic lines," must become "a practical schooling in anarchism." [No
   Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 55 and p. 57] In addition, most
   anarcho-syndicalists support community organisations and struggle
   alongside the more traditional industry based approach usually
   associated within syndicalism. While we have concentrated on the
   industrial side here (simply because this is a key aspect of
   syndicalism) we must stress that syndicalism can and does lend itself
   to community struggles. It is a myth that anarcho-syndicalism ignores
   community struggles and organisation, as can be seen from the history
   of the Spanish CNT for example (see [43]section J.5.1).

   It must be stressed that a syndicalist union is open to all workers
   regardless of their political opinions (or lack of them). The union
   exists to defend workers' interests as workers and is organised in an
   anarchist manner to ensure that their interests are fully expressed.
   This means that an syndicalist organisation is different from an
   organisation of syndicalists. What makes the union syndicalist is its
   structure, aims and methods. Obviously things can change (that is true
   of any organisation which has a democratic structure) but that is a
   test revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalists welcome and do not shirk
   from. As the union is self-managed from below up, its militancy and
   political content is determined by its membership. As Pouget put it,
   the union "offers employers a degree of resistance in geometric
   proportion with the resistance put up by its members." [Op. Cit., p.
   71] That is why syndicalists ensure that power rests in the members of
   the union.

   Syndicalists have two main approaches to building revolutionary unions
   -- "dual unionism"
   and "boring from within." The former approach involves creating new,
   syndicalist, unions, in opposition to the existing trade unions. This
   approach was historically and is currently the favoured way of building
   syndicalist unions (American, Italian, Spanish, Swedish and numerous
   other syndicalists built their own union federations in the heyday of
   syndicalism between 1900 and 1920). "Boring from within" simply means
   working within the existing trade unions in order to reform them and
   make them syndicalist. This approach was favoured by French and British
   syndicalists, plus a few American ones. However, these two approaches
   are not totally in opposition. Many of the dual unions were created by
   syndicalists who had first worked within the existing trade unions.
   Once they got sick of the bureaucratic union machinery and of trying to
   reform it, they split from the reformist unions and formed new,
   revolutionary, ones. Similarly, dual unionists will happily support
   trade unionists in struggle and often be "two carders" (i.e. members of
   both the trade union and the syndicalist one). See [44]section J.5.3
   for more on anarchist perspectives on existing trades unions.

   Syndicalists no matter what tactics they prefer, favour autonomous
   workplace organisations, controlled from below. Both tend to favour
   syndicalists forming networks of militants to spread
   anarchist/syndicalist ideas within the workplace. Indeed, such a
   network (usually called "Industrial Networks" -- see [45]section J.5.4
   for more details) would be an initial stage and essential means for
   creating syndicalist unions. These groups would encourage syndicalist
   tactics and rank and file organisation during struggles and so create
   the potential for building syndicalist unions as libertarian ideas
   spread and are seen to work.

   Syndicalists think that such an organisation is essential for the
   successful creation of an anarchist society as it builds the new world
   in the shell of the old, making a sizeable majority of the population
   aware of anarchism and the benefits of anarchist forms of organisation
   and struggle. Moreover, they argue that those who reject syndicalism
   "because it believes in a permanent organisation of workers" and urge
   "workers to organise 'spontaneously' at the very moment of revolution"
   promote a "con-trick, designed to leave 'the revolutionary movement,'
   so called, in the hands of an educated class . . . [or] so-called
   'revolutionary party' . . . [which] means that the workers are only
   expected to come in the fray when there's any fighting to be done, and
   in normal times leave theorising to the specialists or students."
   [Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against, pp. 82-3] A
   self-managed society can only be created by self-managed means, and as
   only the practice of self-management can ensure its success, the need
   for libertarian popular organisations is essential. Syndicalism is seen
   as the key way working people can prepare themselves for revolution and
   learn to direct their own lives. In this way syndicalism creates a true
   politics of the people, one that does not create a parasitic class of
   politicians and bureaucrats ("We wish to emancipate ourselves, to free
   ourselves", Pelloutier wrote, "but we do not wish to carry out a
   revolution, to risk our skin, to put Pierre the socialist in the place
   of Paul the radical" [quoted by Jeremy Jennings, Syndicalism in France,
   p. 17]).

   This does not mean that syndicalists do not support organisations
   spontaneously created by workers' in struggle (such as workers'
   councils, factory committees and so on). Far from it. Syndicalists have
   played important roles in these kinds of organisation (as can be seen
   from the Russian Revolution, the factory occupations in Italy in 1920,
   the British Shop Steward movement and so on). This is because
   syndicalism acts as a catalyst to militant labour struggles and serves
   to counteract class-collaborationist tendencies by union bureaucrats
   and "socialist" politicians. Part of this activity must involve
   encouraging self-managed organisations where none exist and so
   syndicalists support and encourage all such spontaneous movements,
   hoping that they turn into the basis of a syndicalist union movement or
   a successful revolution. Moreover, most anarcho-syndicalists recognise
   that it is unlikely that every worker, nor even the majority, will be
   in syndicalist unions before a revolutionary period starts. This means
   new organisations, created spontaneously by workers in struggle, would
   have to be the framework of social struggle and the post-capitalist
   society rather than the syndicalist union as such. All the syndicalist
   union can do is provide a practical example of how to organise in a
   libertarian way within capitalism and statism and support spontaneously
   created organisations.

   It should be noted that while the term "syndicalism" dates from the
   1890s in France, the ideas associated with these names have a longer
   history. Anarcho-syndicalist ideas have developed independently in many
   different countries and times. Indeed, anyone familiar with Bakunin's
   work will quickly see that much of his ideas prefigure what was latter
   to become known by these terms. Similarly, we find that the American
   International Working People's Association organised by anarchists in
   the 1880s "anticipated by some twenty years the doctrine of
   anarcho-syndicalism" and "[m]ore than merely resembling the 'Chicago
   Idea' [of the IWPA], the IWW's principles of industrial unionism
   resulted from the conscious efforts of anarchists . . . who continued
   to affirm . . . the principles which the Chicago anarchists gave their
   lives defending." [Salvatore Salerno, Red November, Black November, p.
   51 and p. 79] See [46]section H.2.8 for a discussion of why Marxist
   claims that syndicalism and anarchism are unrelated are obviously
   false.

   (We must stress that we are not arguing that Bakunin "invented"
   syndicalism. Far from it. Rather, we are arguing that Bakunin expressed
   ideas already developed in working class circles and became, if you
   like, the "spokesperson" for these libertarian tendencies in the labour
   movement as well as helping to clarifying these ideas in many ways. As
   Emma Goldman argued, the "feature which distinguishes Syndicalism from
   most philosophies is that it represents the revolutionary philosophy of
   labour conceived and born in the actual struggle and experience of
   workers themselves -- not in universities, colleges, libraries, or in
   the brain of some scientists." [Op. Cit., pp. 88-9] This applies
   equally to Bakunin and the first International).

   Given this, we must also point out here that while syndicalism has
   anarchist roots, not all syndicalists are anarchists. A few Marxists
   have been syndicalists, particularly in the USA where the followers of
   Daniel De Leon supported Industrial Unionism and helped form the
   Industrial Workers of the World. The Irish socialist James Connelly was
   also a Marxist-syndicalist, as was Big Bill Haywood who was a leader of
   the IWW and a leading member of the US Socialist Party.
   Marxist-syndicalists are generally in favour of more centralisation
   within syndicalist unions (the IWW was by far the most centralised
   syndicalist union) and often argue that a political party is required
   to complement the work of the union. Needless to say,
   anarcho-syndicalists disagree, arguing that centralisation kills the
   spirit of revolt and weakens a unions real strength and that political
   parties are both ineffective when compared to militant unionism and a
   constant source of corruption. [Rocker, Op. Cit., pp. 55-60] So not all
   syndicalists are anarchists, leading those anarchists who are
   syndicalists often use the term "anarcho-syndicalism" to indicate that
   they are both anarchists and syndicalists as well as to stress the
   libertarian roots and syndicalism. In addition, not all anarchists are
   syndicalists. We discuss the reasons for this in the [47]next section.

   For more information on anarcho-syndicalist ideas, Rudolf Rocker's
   Anarcho-Syndicalism is still the classic introduction to the subject.
   The collection of articles by British syndicalist Tom Brown entitled
   Syndicalism is also worth reading. Daniel Guerin's No Gods, No Masters
   contains articles by leading French syndicalist thinkers.

J.3.9 Why are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?

   Before discussing why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists, we
   must clarify a few points first. Let us be clear, non-syndicalist
   anarchists usually support the ideas of workplace organisation and
   struggle, of direct action, of solidarity and so on. Thus most
   non-syndicalist anarchists do not disagree with anarcho-syndicalists on
   these issues. Indeed, many even support the creation of syndicalist
   unions. Thus many anarcho-communists like Alexander Berkman, Errico
   Malatesta and Emma Goldman supported anarcho-syndicalist organisations
   and even, like Malatesta, helped form such revolutionary union
   federations (namely, the FORA in Argentina) and urged anarchists to
   take a leading role in organising unions. So when we use the term
   "non-syndicalist anarchist" we are not suggesting that these anarchists
   reject all aspects of anarcho-syndicalism. Rather, they are critical of
   certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalist ideas while supporting the rest.

   In the past, a few communist-anarchists did oppose the struggle for
   improvements within capitalism as "reformist." However, these were few
   and far between and with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism in the 1890s,
   the vast majority of communist-anarchists recognised that only by
   encouraging the struggle for reforms would people take them seriously
   as this showed the benefits of anarchist tactics and organisation in
   practice so ensuring anarchist ideas grow in influence. Thus
   syndicalism was a healthy response to the rise of "abstract
   revolutionarism" that infected the anarchist movement during the 1880s,
   particularly in France and Italy. Thus communist-anarchists agree with
   syndicalists on the importance of struggling for and winning reforms
   and improvements within capitalism by direct action and solidarity.

   Similarly, anarchists like Malatesta also recognised the importance of
   mass organisations like unions. As he argued, "to encourage popular
   organisations of all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic
   ideas . . . An authoritarian party, which aims at capturing power to
   impose its ideas, has an interest in the people remaining an amorphous
   mass, unable to act for themselves and therefore easily dominated . . .
   But we anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the
   people to emancipate themselves . . . we want the new way of life to
   emerge from the body of the people and correspond to the state of their
   development and advance as they advance." [Errico Malatesta: His Life
   and Ideas, p. 90] This can only occur when there are popular
   organisations, like trade unions, within which people can express
   themselves, come to common agreements and act. Moreover, these
   organisations must be autonomous, self-governing, be libertarian in
   nature and be independent of all parties and organisations (including
   anarchist ones). The similarity with anarcho-syndicalist ideas is
   striking.

   So why, if this is the case, are many anarchists not
   anarcho-syndicalists? There are two main reasons for this. First, there
   is the question of whether unions are, by their nature, revolutionary
   organisations. Second, whether syndicalist unions are sufficient to
   create anarchy by themselves. We will discuss each in turn.

   As can be seen from any country, the vast majority of unions are deeply
   reformist and bureaucratic in nature. They are centralised, with power
   resting at the top in the hands of officials. This suggests that in
   themselves unions are not revolutionary. As Malatesta argued, this is
   to be expected for "all movements founded on material and immediate
   interests (and a mass working class movement cannot be founded on
   anything else), if the ferment, the drive and the unremitting efforts
   of men [and women] of ideas struggling and making sacrifices for an
   ideal future are lacking, tend to adapt themselves to circumstances,
   foster a conservative spirit, and fear of change in those who manage to
   improve their conditions, and often end up by creating new privileged
   classes and serving to support and consolidate the system one would
   want to destroy." [Op. Cit., pp. 113-4]

   If we look at the role of the union within capitalist society we see
   that in order for it to work, it must offer a reason for the boss to
   recognise and negotiate with it. This means that the union must be able
   to offer the boss something in return for any reforms it gets, namely
   labour discipline. In return for an improvement in wages or conditions,
   the union must be able to get workers to agree to submit to the
   contracts the union signs with their boss. In other words, they must be
   able to control their members -- stop them fighting the boss -- if they
   are to have anything with which to bargain with. This results in the
   union becoming a third force in industry, with interests separate than
   the workers which it claims to represent. The role of unionism as a
   seller of labour power means that it often has to make compromises,
   compromises it has to make its members agree to. This necessities a
   tendency for power to be taken from the rank and file of the unions and
   centralised in the hands of officials at the top of the organisation.
   This ensures that "the workers organisation becomes what it must
   perforce be in a capitalist society -- a means not of refusing to
   recognise and overthrowing the bosses, but simply for hedging round and
   limiting the bosses' power." [Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist
   Revolution, p. 29]

   Anarcho-syndicalists are aware of this problem. That is why their
   unions are decentralised, self-managed and organised from the bottom up
   in a federal manner. As Durruti argued:

     "No anarchists in the union committees unless at the ground level.
     In these committees, in case of conflict with the boss, the militant
     is forced to compromise to arrive at an agreement. The contracts and
     activities which come from being in this position, push the militant
     towards bureaucracy. Conscious of this risk, we do not wish to run
     it. Our role is to analyse from the bottom the different dangers
     which can beset a union organisation like ours. No militant should
     prolong his job in committees, beyond the time allotted to him. No
     permanent and indispensable people." [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti:
     The People Armed, p. 183]

   However, structure is rarely enough in itself to undermine the
   bureaucratic tendencies created by the role of unions in the capitalist
   economy. While such libertarian structures can slow down the tendency
   towards bureaucracy, non-syndicalist anarchists argue that they cannot
   stop it. They point to the example of the French CGT which had become
   reformist by 1914 (the majority of other syndicalist unions were
   crushed by fascism or communism before they had a chance to develop
   fully). Even the Spanish CNT (by far the most successful
   anarcho-syndicalist union) suffered from the problem of reformism,
   causing the anarchists in the union to organise the FAI in 1927 to
   combat it (which it did, very successfully). According to Jose Peirats,
   the "participation of the anarchist group in the mass movement CNT
   helped to ensure that CNT's revolutionary nature." This indicates the
   validity of Malatesta's arguments concerning the need for anarchists to
   remain distinct of the unions organisationally while working within
   them -- just as Peirat's comment that "[b]linkered by participation in
   union committees, the FAI became incapable of a wider vision" indicates
   the validity of Malatesta's warnings against anarchists taking
   positions of responsibility in unions! [Anarchists in the Spanish
   Revolution, p. 241 and pp. 239-40]

   Moreover, even the structure of syndicalist unions can cause problems:
   "In modelling themselves structurally on the bourgeois economy, the
   syndicalist unions tended to become the organisational counterparts of
   the very centralised apparatus they professed to oppose. By pleading
   the need to deal effectively with the tightly knit bourgeoisie and
   state machinery, reformist leaders in syndicalist unions often had
   little difficulty in shifting organisational control from the bottom to
   the top." [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 123]

   In addition, as the syndicalist unions grow in size and influence their
   initial radicalism is usually watered-down. This is because, "since the
   unions must remain open to all those who desire to win from the masters
   better conditions of life, whatever their opinions may be . . ., they
   are naturally led to moderate their aspirations, first so that they
   should not frighten away those they wish to have with them, and
   because, in proportion as numbers increase, those with ideas who have
   initiated the movement remain buried in a majority that is only
   occupied with the petty interests of the moment." [Errico Malatesta,
   Anarchism and Syndicalism, p. 150] Which, ironically given that
   increased self-management is seen as a way of reducing tendencies
   towards bureaucracy, means that syndicalist unions have a tendency
   towards reformism simply because the majority of their members will be
   non-revolutionary if the union grows in size in non-revolutionary times
   (as can be seen from the development of the Swedish syndicalist union
   the SAC).

   So, if the union's militant strategy succeeds in winning reforms, more
   and more workers will join it. This influx of non-libertarians must, in
   a self-managed organisation, exert a de-radicalising influence on the
   unions politics and activities in non-revolutionary times. The
   syndicalist would argue that the process of struggling for reforms
   combined with the educational effects of participation and
   self-management will reduce this influence and, of course, they are
   right. However, non-syndicalist anarchists would counter this by
   arguing that the libertarian influences generated by struggle and
   participation would be strengthened by the work of anarchist groups
   and, without this work, the de-radicalising influences would outweigh
   the libertarian ones. In addition, the success of a syndicalist union
   must be partly determined by the general level of class struggle. In
   periods of great struggle, the membership will be more radical than in
   quiet periods and it is quiet periods which cause the most difficulties
   for syndicalist unions. With a moderate membership the revolutionary
   aims and tactics of the union will also become moderate. As one
   academic writer on French syndicalism put it, syndicalism "was always
   based on workers acting in the economic arena to better their
   conditions, build class consciousness, and prepare for revolution. The
   need to survive and build a working-class movement had always forced
   syndicalists to adapt themselves to the exigencies of the moment."
   [Barbara Mitchell, "French Syndicalism: An Experiment in Practical
   Anarchism", pp. 25-41, Revolutionary Syndicalism, Marcel van der Linden
   and Wayne Thorpe (eds.), p. 25]

   As can be seen from the history of many syndicalist unions (and,
   obviously, mainstream unions too) this seems to be the case -- the
   libertarian tendencies are outweighed by the de-radicalising ones. This
   can also be seen from the issue of collective bargaining:

     "The problem of collective bargaining foreshadowed the difficulty of
     maintaining syndicalist principles in developed capitalist
     societies. Many organisations within the international syndicalist
     movement initially repudiated collective agreements with employers
     on the grounds that by a collaborative sharing of responsibility for
     work discipline, such agreements would expand bureaucratisation
     within the unions, undermine revolutionary spirit, and restrict the
     freedom of action that workers were always to maintain against the
     class enemy. From an early date, however, sometimes after a period
     of suspicion and resistance, many workers gave up this position. In
     the early decades of the century it became clear that to maintain or
     gain a mass membership, syndicalist unions had to accept collective
     bargaining." [Marcel van der Linden and Wayne Thorpe, Op. Cit., p.
     19]

   Thus, for most anarchists, "the Trade Unions are, by their very nature
   reformist and never revolutionary. The revolutionary spirit must be
   introduced, developed and maintained by the constant actions of
   revolutionaries who work from within their ranks as well as from
   outside, but it cannot be the normal, natural definition of the Trade
   Unions function." [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p.
   117]

   This does not mean that anarchists should not work within labour
   organisations. Nor does it mean rejecting anarcho-syndicalist unions as
   an anarchist tactic. Far from it. Rather it is a case of recognising
   these organisations for what they are, reformist organisations which
   are not an end in themselves but one (albeit, important) means of
   preparing the way for the achievement of anarchism. Neither does it
   mean that anarchists should not try to make labour organisations as
   anarchistic as possible or have anarchist objectives. Working within
   the labour movement (at the rank and file level, of course) is
   essential to gain influence for anarchist ideas, just as is working
   with unorganised workers. But this does not mean that the unions are
   revolutionary by their very nature, as syndicalism implies. As history
   shows, and as syndicalists themselves are aware, the vast majority of
   unions are reformist. Non-syndicalist anarchists argue there is a
   reason for that and syndicalist unions are not immune to these
   tendencies just because they call themselves revolutionary. Due to
   these tendencies, non-syndicalist anarchists stress the need to
   organise as anarchists first and foremost in order to influence the
   class struggle and encourage the creation of autonomous workplace and
   community organisations to fight that struggle. Rather than fuse the
   anarchist and working class movement, non-syndicalist anarchists stress
   the importance of anarchists organising as anarchists to influence the
   working class movement.

   All this does not mean that purely anarchist organisations or
   individual anarchists cannot become reformist. Of course they can (just
   look at the Spanish FAI which along with the CNT co-operated with the
   state during the Spanish Revolution). However, unlike syndicalist
   unions, the anarchist organisation is not pushed towards reformism due
   to its role within society. That is an important difference -- the
   institutional factors are not present for the anarchist federation as
   they are for the syndicalist union federation.

   The second reason why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists is
   the question of whether syndicalist unions are sufficient in themselves
   to create anarchy. Pierre Monatte, a French syndicalist, argued that
   "Syndicalism, as the [CGT's] Congress of Amiens proclaimed in 1906, is
   sufficient unto itself" as "the working class, having at last attained
   majority, means to be self-sufficient and to rely on no-one else for
   its emancipation." [The Anarchist Reader, p. 219]

   This idea of self-sufficiency means that the anarchist and the
   syndicalist movement must be fused into one, with syndicalism taking
   the role of both anarchist group and labour union. Thus a key
   difference between anarcho-syndicalists and other anarchists is over
   the question of the need for a specifically anarchist organisation.
   While most anarchists are sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism, few
   totally subscribe to anarcho-syndicalist ideas in their pure form. This
   is because, in its pure form, syndicalism rejects the idea of anarchist
   groups and instead considers the union as the focal point of social
   struggle and anarchist activism. However, an anarcho-syndicalist may
   support a specific anarchist federation to work within the union and
   outside.

   So anarchists critical of anarcho-syndicalism are also active in the
   labour movement, working with the rank and file while keeping their own
   identity as anarchists and organising as anarchists. Thus Malatesta:
   "In the past I deplored that the comrades isolated themselves from the
   working-class movement. Today I deplore that many of us, falling into
   the contrary extreme, let themselves be swallowed up in the same
   movement." [Op. Cit., p. 225] In the eyes of other anarchists
   anarcho-syndicalism in its "pure" (revolutionary syndicalist) form
   makes the error of confusing the anarchist and union movement and so
   ensures that the resulting movement can do neither work well: "Every
   fusion or confusion between the anarchist movement and the trade union
   movement ends, either in rendering the later unable to carry out its
   specific task or by weakening, distorting, or extinguishing the
   anarchist spirit." [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p.
   123]

   Most anarchists agree with Malatesta when he argued that "anarchists
   must not want the Trade Unions to be anarchist, but they must act
   within their ranks in favour of anarchist aims, as individuals, as
   groups and as federations of groups. . . [I]n the situation as it is,
   and recognising that the social development of one's workmates is what
   it is, the anarchist groups should not expect the workers' organisation
   to act as if they were anarchist, but should make every effort to
   induce them to approximate as much as possible to the anarchist
   method." [Op. Cit., pp. 124-5] Given that it appears to be the case
   that labour unions are by nature reformist, they cannot be expected to
   be enough in themselves when creating a free society. Hence the need
   for anarchists to organise as anarchists as well as alongside their
   fellow workers as workers in order to spread anarchist ideas on tactics
   and aims. This activity within existing unions does not necessarily
   mean attempting to "reform" the union in a libertarian manner (although
   some anarchists would support this approach). Rather it means working
   with the rank and file of the unions and trying to create autonomous
   workplace organisations, independent of the trade union bureaucracy and
   organised in a libertarian way.

   This involves creating anarchist organisations separate from but which
   (in part) work within the labour movement for anarchist ends. Let us
   not forget that the syndicalist organisation is the union, it organises
   all workers regardless of their politics. A "union" which just let
   anarchists join would not be a union, it would be an anarchist group
   organised in the workplace. As anarcho-syndicalists themselves are
   aware, an anarcho-syndicalist union is not the same as a union of
   anarcho-syndicalists. How can we expect an organisation made up of
   non-anarchists be totally anarchist? Due to this, tendencies always
   appeared within syndicalist unions that were reformist and because of
   this most anarchists, including many anarcho-syndicalists we must note,
   argue that there is a need for anarchists to work within the rank and
   file of the unions to spread their anarchist ideals and aims, and this
   implies anarchist organisations separate from the labour movement, even
   if that movement is based on syndicalist unions.

   As Bakunin argued, the anarchist organisation "is the necessary
   complement to the International [i.e. the union federation]. But the
   International and the Alliance [the anarchist federation], while having
   the same ultimate aims, perform different functions. The International
   endeavours to unify the working masses . . . regardless of nationality
   or religious and political beliefs, into one compact body: the
   Alliance, on the other hand, tries to give these masses a really
   revolutionary direction." This did not mean that the Alliance was
   imposing a foreign theory onto the members of the unions, because the
   "programs of one and the other . . . differ only in the degree of their
   revolutionary development . . . The program of the Alliance represents
   the fullest unfolding of the International." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p.
   157] Nor did it imply that anarchists think that unions and other forms
   of popular organisations should be controlled by anarchists. Far from
   it! Anarchists are the strongest supporters of the autonomy of all
   popular organisations. As we indicated in [48]section J.3.6, anarchists
   desire to influence popular organisations by the strength of our ideas
   within the rank and file and not by imposing our ideas on them.

   In addition to these major points of disagreement, there are minor ones
   as well. For example, many anarchists dislike the emphasis syndicalists
   place on the workplace and see "in syndicalism a shift in focus from
   the commune to the trade union, from all of the oppressed to the
   industrial proletariat alone, from the streets to the factories, and,
   in emphasis at least, from insurrection to the general strike."
   [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 123] However, most anarcho-syndicalists are
   well aware that life exists outside the workplace and so this
   disagreement is largely one of emphasis. Similarly, many anarchists
   disagreed with the early syndicalist argument that a general strike was
   enough to create a revolution. They argued, with Malatesta in the
   forefront, that while a general strike would be "an excellent means for
   starting the social revolution" it would be wrong to think that it made
   "armed insurrection unnecessary" since the "first to die of hunger
   during a general strike would not be the bourgeois, who dispose of all
   the stores, but the workers." In order for this not to occur, the
   workers would need to "take over production" which are protected by the
   police and armed forces and this meant "insurrection." [Malatesta, The
   Anarchist Reader, pp. 223-4] Again, however, most modern syndicalists
   accept this to be the case and see the "expropriatory general strike,"
   in the words of French syndicalist Pierre Besnard, as "clearly
   insurrectional." [quoted by Vernon Richards, Errico Malatesta: His Life
   and Ideas, p. 288] We mention this purely to counter Leninist claims
   that syndicalists subscribe to the same ones they did in the 1890s.

   Despite our criticisms we should recognise that the difference between
   anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are slight and (often) just a case
   of emphasis. Most anarchists support anarcho-syndicalist unions where
   they exist and often take a key role in creating and organising them.
   Similarly, many self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists also support
   specific organisations of anarchists to work within and outwith the
   syndicalist union. Syndicalist unions, where they exist, are far more
   progressive than any other union. Not only are they democratic unions
   and create an atmosphere where anarchist ideas are listened to with
   respect but they also organise and fight in a way that breaks down the
   divisions into leaders and led, doers and watchers. On its own this is
   very good but not good enough. For non-syndicalist anarchists, the
   missing element is an organisation winning support for anarchist ideas
   and tactics both within revolutionary unions and everywhere else
   working class people come together.

   For a further information on the anarchist criticism of syndicalism, we
   can suggest no better source than the writings of Errico Malatesta. The
   books Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas and The Anarchist Revolution
   contain Malatesta's viewpoints on anarchism, syndicalism and how
   anarchists should work within the labour movement. The Anarchist Reader
   contains the famous debate between the syndicalist Pierre Monatte and
   Malatesta at the International Anarchist conference in Amsterdam in
   1907.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech16
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj31
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj32
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj33
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj34
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj35
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj37
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj38
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj39
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj32
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj33
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj34
  18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj35
  19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html#seca38
  20. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
  21. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj33
  22. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj34
  23. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj33
  24. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj35
  25. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj34
  26. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj32
  27. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html
  28. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append46.html
  29. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
  30. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj34
  31. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj34
  32. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
  33. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj33
  34. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj35
  35. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH5.html
  36. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj37
  37. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca27
  38. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ7.html
  39. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
  40. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html#seca32
  41. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj52
  42. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj210
  43. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj51
  44. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj53
  45. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj54
  46. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech28
  47. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj39
  48. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
