              J.7 What do anarchists mean by "social revolution"?

   In anarchist theory, "social revolution" means far more than just
   revolution. For anarchists, a true revolution is far more than just a
   change in the political makeup, structure or form of a society. It must
   transform all aspects of a society -- political, economic, social,
   interpersonal relationships, sexual and so on -- and the individuals
   who comprise it. Indeed, these two transformations go hand in hand,
   complementing each other and supporting each other -- individuals,
   while transforming society, transform themselves in the process.

   As Alexander Berkman put it, "there are revolutions and revolutions.
   Some revolutions change only the governmental form by putting a new set
   of rulers in place of the old. These are political revolutions, and as
   such they are often meet with little resistance. But a revolution that
   aims to abolish the entire system of wage slavery must also do away
   with the power of one class to oppress another. That is, it is not any
   more a mere change of rulers, of government, not a political
   revolution, but one that seeks to alter the whole character of society.
   That would be a social revolution." [ABC of Anarchism, p. 34]

   It means two related things. Firstly, it means transforming all aspects
   of society and not just tinkering with certain aspects of the current
   system. Where political revolution means, in essence, changing bosses,
   social revolution means changing society. Thus social revolution
   signifies a change in the social, economic and cultural and sexual in a
   libertarian direction, a transformation in the way society is organised
   and run. Social revolution, in other words, does not aim to alter one
   form of subjection for another, but to do away with everything that can
   enslave and oppress the individual. Secondly, it means bringing about
   this fundamental change directly by the mass of people in society,
   rather than relying on political means of achieving this end, in the
   style of Marxist-Leninists and other authoritarian socialists. For
   anarchists, such an approach is a political revolution only and doomed
   to failure. Hence the "actual, positive work of the social revolution
   must . . . be carried out by the toilers themselves, by the labouring
   people." [Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 45]

   That is not to say that an anarchist social revolution is not political
   in content -- far from it; it should be obvious to anyone reading this
   FAQ that there are considerable political theories at work within
   anarchism. What we are saying, however, is that anarchists do not seek
   to seize power and attempt, through control of law enforcement and the
   military (in the style of governments) to bring change about from the
   top-down. Rather, we seek to bring change upward from below, and in so
   doing, make such a revolution inevitable and not contingent on the
   machinations of a political vanguard. As Durruti argued, "[w]e never
   believed that the revolution consisted of the seizure of power by a
   minority which would impose a dictatorship on the people . . . We want
   a revolution by and for the people. Without this no revolution is
   possible. It would be a Coup d'Etat, nothing more." [quoted by Abel
   Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, pp. 135-7]

   Thus, for anarchists, a social revolution is a movement from below, of
   the oppressed and exploited struggling for their own freedom. Moreover,
   such a revolution does not appear as if by magic. Rather, it is the
   case that revolutions "are not improvised. They are not made at will by
   individuals. They come about through the force of circumstance and are
   independent of any deliberate will or conspiracy." [Michael Bakunin,
   quote by Brian Morris, Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 139] They
   are, in fact, a product of social evolution and of social struggle. As
   Malatesta reminds us:

     "the oppressed masses . . . have never completely resigned
     themselves to oppression and poverty, and who today more than ever
     than ever show themselves thirsting for justice, freedom and
     wellbeing, are beginning to understand that they will not be able to
     achieve their emancipation except by union and solidarity with all
     the oppressed, with the exploited everywhere in the world. And they
     also understand that the indispensable condition for their
     emancipation which cannot be neglected is the possession of the
     means of production, of the land and of the instruments of labour."
     [Anarchy, p. 30]

   Thus any social revolution proceeds from the daily struggles of working
   class people (just as anarchism does). It is not an event, rather it is
   a process -- a process which is occurring at this moment. Thus, for
   anarchists, a social revolution is not something in the future but an
   process which is occurring in the here and now. As German Anarchist
   Gustav Landauer put it:

     "The State is not something that can be destroyed by a revolution,
     but it is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings,
     a mode of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other
     relationships, by behaving differently." [quoted by George Woodcock,
     Anarchism, p. 421]

   This does not mean that anarchists do not recognise that a revolution
   will be marked by, say, insurrectionary events (such as a general
   strike, wide scale occupations of land, housing, workplaces, etc.,
   actual insurrections and so on). Of course not, it means that we place
   these events in a process, within social movements and that they do not
   occur in isolation from history or the evolution of ideas and movements
   within society.

   Berkman echoes this point when he argued that while "a social
   revolution is one that entirely changes the foundation of society, its
   political, economic and social character," such a change "must first
   take place in the ideas and opinions of the people, in the minds of men
   [and women]." This means that "the social revolution must be prepared.
   Prepared in these sense of furthering evolutionary process, of
   enlightening the people about the evils of present-day society and
   convincing them of the desirability and possibility, of the justice and
   practicability of a social life based on liberty." [Alexander Berkman,
   Op. Cit., p. 38] And such preparation would be the result of social
   struggle in the here and now, social struggle based on direct action,
   solidarity and self-managed organisations. While Berkman concentrates
   on the labour movement in his classic work, but his comments are
   applicable to all social movements:

     "In the daily struggle of the proletariat such an organisation [a
     syndicalist union] would be able to achieve victories about which
     the conservative union, as at present built, cannot even dream. . .
     . Such a union would soon become something more than a mere defender
     and protector of the worker. It would gain a vital realisation of
     the meaning of unity and consequent power, of labour solidarity. The
     factory and shop would serve as a training camp to develop the
     worker's understanding of his proper role in life, to cultivate his
     [or her] self-reliance and independence, teach him [or her] mutual
     help and co-operation, and make him [or her] conscious of his [or
     her] responsibility. He will learn to decide and act on his [or her]
     own judgement, not leaving it to leaders or politicians to attend to
     his [or her] affairs and look out for his [or her] welfare. . . He
     [or she] will grow to understand that present economic and social
     arrangements are wrong and criminal, and he [or she] will determine
     to change them. The shop committee and union will become the field
     of preparation for a new economic system, for a new social life."
     [Op. Cit., p. 59]

   In other words, the struggle against authority, exploitation,
   oppression and domination in the here and now is the start of the
   social revolution. It is this daily struggle which creates free people
   and the organisations it generates "bear . . . the living seed of the
   new society which is to replace the old one. They are creating not only
   the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself." [Michael Bakunin,
   Bakunin On Anarchism, p. 255] Hence Bakunin's comment that anarchists
   think socialism will be attained only "by the development and
   organisation, not of the political but of the social organisation (and,
   by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses as much in
   the towns as in the countryside." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,
   pp. 197-8] Such social power is expressed in economic and community
   organisations such as self-managed unions and workplace/community
   assemblies (see [1]section J.5).

   Anarchists try and follow the example of our Spanish comrades in the
   C.N.T. and F.A.I. who, when "faced with the conventional opposition
   between reformism and revolution, they appear, in effect, to have put
   forward a third alternative, seeking to obtain immediate practical
   improvements through the actual development, in practice, of
   autonomous, libertarian forms of self-organisation." [Nick Rider, "The
   Practice of Direct Action: The Barcelona Rent Strike of 1931", in For
   Anarchism, pp. 79-105, David Goodway (ed.), p. 99] While doing this,
   anarchists must also "beware of ourselves becoming less anarchist
   because the masses are not ready for anarchy." [Malatesta, Life and
   Ideas, p. 162]

   Therefore, revolution and anarchism is the product of struggle, a
   social process in which anarchist ideas spread and develop. However,
   "[t]his does not mean. . . that to achieve anarchy we must wait till
   everyone becomes an anarchist. On the contrary. . . under present
   conditions only a small minority, favoured by specific circumstances,
   can manage to conceive what anarchy is. It would be wishful thinking to
   hope for a general conversion before a change actually took place in
   the kind of environment in which authoritarianism and privilege now
   flourish. It is precisely for this reason that [we] . . . need to
   organise for the bringing about of anarchy, or at any rate that degree
   of anarchy which could become gradually feasible, as soon as a
   sufficient amount of freedom has been won and a nucleus of anarchists
   somewhere exists that is both numerically strong enough and able to be
   self-sufficient and to spread its influence locally." [Errico
   Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, pp. 83-4]

   Thus anarchists influence the struggle, the revolutionary process by
   encouraging anarchistic tendencies within those who are not yet
   anarchists but are instinctively acting in a libertarian manner.
   Anarchists spread the anarchist message to those in struggle and
   support libertarian tendencies in it as far as they can. In this way,
   more and more people will become anarchists and anarchy will become
   increasingly possible. We discuss the role of anarchists in a social
   revolution in [2]section J.7.4 and will not do so now.

   For anarchists, a social revolution is the end product of years of
   social struggle. It is marked by the transformation of a given society
   and the breaking down of all forms of oppression and the creation of
   new ways of living, new forms of self-managed organisation, a new
   attitude to live itself. Moreover, we do not wait for the future to
   introduce such transformations in our daily life. Rather, we try and
   create as much anarchistic tendencies in today's society as possible in
   the firm belief that in so doing we are pushing the creation of a free
   society nearer.

   So anarchists, including revolutionary ones, try to make the world more
   libertarian and so bring us closer to freedom. Few anarchists think of
   anarchy as something in (or for) the distant future, rather it is
   something we try and create in the here and now by living and
   struggling in a libertarian manner. Once enough people do this, then a
   more extensive change towards anarchy (i.e. a revolution) is
   inevitable.

J.7.1 Are all anarchists revolutionaries?

   No, far from it. While most anarchists do believe that a social
   revolution is required to create a free society, some reject the idea.
   This is because they think that revolutions are by their very nature
   violent and coercive and so are against anarchist principles. In the
   words of Proudhon (in reply to Marx):

     "Perhaps you still hold the opinion that no reform is possible
     without a helping coup de main, without what used to be called a
     revolution but which is quite simply a jolt. I confess that my most
     recent studies have led me to abandon this view, which I understand
     and would willingly discuss, since for a long time I held it myself.
     I do not think that this is what we need in order to succeed, and
     consequently we must not suggest revolutionary action as the means
     of social reform because this supposed means would simply be an
     appeal to force and to arbitrariness. In brief, it would be a
     contradiction." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p.
     151]

   Also they point to the fact that the state is far better armed than the
   general population, better trained and (as history proves) more than
   willing to slaughter as many people as required to restore "order." In
   face of this power, they argue, revolution is doomed to failure.

   Those opposed to revolution come from all tendencies of the movement.
   Traditionally, Individualist anarchists are usually against the idea of
   revolution, as was Proudhon. However, with the failure of the Russian
   Revolution and the defeat of the C.N.T.-F.A.I. in Spain, some social
   anarchists have rethought support for revolution. Rather than seeing
   revolution as the key way of creating a free society they consider it
   doomed to failure as the state is too strong a force to be overcome by
   insurrection. Instead of revolution, such anarchists support the
   creation of alternatives, such as co-operatives, mutual banks and so
   on, which will help transform capitalism into libertarian socialism.
   Such alternative building, combined with civil disobedience and
   non-payment of taxes, is seen as the best way to creating anarchy.

   Most revolutionary anarchists agree on the importance of building
   libertarian alternatives in the here and now. They would agree with
   Bakunin when he argued that such organisations as libertarian unions,
   co-operatives and so on are essential "so that when the Revolution,
   brought about by the natural force of circumstances, breaks out, there
   will be a real force at hand which knows what to do and by virtue
   thereof is capable of taking the Revolution into its own hands and
   imparting to it a direction salutary for the people: a serious,
   international organisation of worker's organisations of all countries,
   capable of replacing the departing political world of the States and
   the bourgeoisie." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 323] Thus,
   for most anarchists, the difference of evolution and revolution is one
   of little import -- anarchists should support libertarian tendencies
   within society as they support revolutionary situations when they
   occur.

   Moreover, revolutionary anarchists argue that, ultimately, capitalism
   cannot be reformed away nor will the state wither away under the
   onslaught of libertarian institutions and attitudes. They do not
   consider it possible to "burn Property little by little" via "some
   system of economics" which will "put back into society . . . the wealth
   which has been taken out of society by another system of economics", to
   use Proudhon's expression. [Op. Cit., p. 151] Therefore, libertarian
   tendencies within capitalism may make life better under that system but
   they cannot, ultimately, get rid of it. This implies a social
   revolution, they argue. Such anarchists agree with Alexander Berkman
   when he writes:

     "This is no record of any government or authority, of any group or
     class in power having given up its mastery voluntarily. In every
     instance it required the use of force, or at least the threat of
     it." [ABC of Anarchism, p. 32]

   Even the end of State capitalism ("Communism") in the Eastern Block
   does not contradict this argument. Without the mass action of the
   population, the regime would have continued. Faced with a massive
   popular revolt, the Commissars realised that it was better to renounce
   power than have it taken from them. Thus mass rebellion, the start of
   any true revolution, was required.

   Moreover, the argument that the state is too powerful to be defeated
   has been proven wrong time and time again. Every revolution has
   defeated a military machine which previously been claimed to be
   unbeatable. For example, the people armed is Spain defeated the
   military in two-thirds of the country. Ultimately, the power of the
   state rests on its troops following orders. If those troops rebel, then
   the state is powerless. That is why anarchists have always produced
   anti-militarist propaganda urging troops to join strikers and other
   people in revolt. Revolutionary anarchists, therefore, argue that any
   state can be defeated, if the circumstances are right and the work of
   anarchists is to encourage those circumstances.

   In addition, revolutionary anarchists argue that even if anarchists did
   not support revolutionary change, this would not stop such events
   happening. Revolutions are the product of developments in human society
   and occur whether we desire them or not. They start with small
   rebellions, small acts of refusal by individuals, groups, workplaces,
   communities and grow. These acts of rebellion are inevitable in any
   hierarchical society, as is their spreading wider and wider.
   Revolutionary anarchists argue that anarchists must, by the nature of
   our politics and our desire for freedom, support such acts of rebellion
   and, ultimately, social revolution. Not to do so means ignoring people
   in struggle against our common enemy and ignoring the means by which
   anarchists ideas and attitudes will grow within existing society. Thus
   Alexander Berkman is right when he wrote:

     "That is why it is no prophecy to foresee that some day it must come
     to decisive struggle between the masters of life and the
     dispossessed masses.

     "As a matter if fact, that struggle is going on all the time. There
     is a continuous warfare between capital and labour. That warfare
     generally proceeds within so-called legal forms. But even these
     erupt now and then in violence, as during strikes and lockouts,
     because the armed fist of government is always at the service of the
     masters, and that fist gets into action the moment capital feels its
     profits threatened: then it drops the mask of 'mutual interests' and
     'partnership' with labour and resorts to the final argument of every
     master, to coercion and force.

     "It is therefore certain that government and capital will not allow
     themselves to be quietly abolished if they can help it; nor will
     they miraculously 'disappear' of themselves, as some people pretend
     to believe. It will require a revolution to get rid of them."
     [Op. Cit., p. 33]

   However, all anarchists are agreed that any revolution should be as
   non-violent as possible. Violence is the tool of oppression and, for
   anarchists, violence is only legitimate as a means of self-defence
   against authority. Therefore revolutionary anarchists do not seek
   "violent revolution" -- they are just aware that when people refuse to
   kow-tow to authority then that authority will use violence against
   them. This use of violence has been directed against non-violent forms
   of direct action and so those anarchists who reject revolution will not
   avoid state violence directed against.

   Nor do revolutionary anarchists think that revolution is in
   contradiction to the principles of anarchism. As Malatesta put it,
   "[f]or two people to live in peace they must both want peace; if one
   insists on using force to oblige the other to work for him and serve
   him, then the other, if he wishes to retain his dignity as a man and
   not be reduced to abject slavery, will be obliged, in spite of his love
   of peace, to resist force with adequate means." [Malatesta, Life and
   Ideas, p. 54] Under any hierarchical system, those in authority do not
   leave those subject to them in peace. The boss does not treat his/her
   workers as equals, working together by free agreement without
   differences in power. Rather, the boss orders the worker about and uses
   the threat of sanctions to get compliance. Similarly with the state.
   Under these conditions, revolution cannot be authoritarian -- for it is
   not authoritarian to destroy authority! To quote Rudolf Rocker:

     "We . . . know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater. And
     we know, too, that the owning classes will never yield up their
     privileges spontaneously. On the day of victorious revolution the
     workers will have to impose their will on the present owners of the
     soil, of the subsoil and of the means of production, which cannot be
     done -- let us be clear on this -- without the workers taking the
     capital of society into their own hands, and, above all, without
     their having demolished the authoritarian structure which is, and
     will continue to be, the fortress keeping the masses of the people
     under dominion. Such an action is, without doubt, an act of
     liberation; a proclamation of social justice; the very essence of
     social revolution, which has nothing in common with the utterly
     bourgeois principle of dictatorship." [Anarchism and Sovietism]

   Errico Malatesta comments reflect well the position of revolutionary
   anarchists with regards to the use of force:

     "We neither seek to impose anything by force nor do we wish to
     submit to a violent imposition.

     "We intend to use force against government, because it is by force
     that we are kept in subjection by government.

     "We intend to expropriate the owners of property because it is by
     force that they withhold the raw materials and wealth, which is the
     fruit of human labour, and use it to oblige others to work in their
     interest.

     "We shall resist with force whoever would wish by force, to retain
     or regain the means to impose his will and exploit the labour of
     others. . .

     "With the exception of these cases, in which the use of violence is
     justified as a defence against force, we are always against
     violence, and for self-determination."
     [Op. Cit., p. 56]

   This is the reason why most anarchists are revolutionaries. They do not
   think it against the principles of anarchism and consider it the only
   real means of creating a free society -- a society in which the far
   greater, and permanent, violence which keeps the majority of humanity
   in servitude can be ended once and for all.

J.7.2 Is social revolution possible?

   One objection to the possibility of social revolution is based on what
   we might call "the paradox of social change." This argument goes as
   follows: authoritarian institutions reward and select people with an
   authoritarian type of personality for the most influential positions in
   society; such types of people have both (a) an interest in perpetuating
   authoritarian institutions (from which they benefit) and (b) the power
   to perpetuate them; hence they create a self-sustaining and tightly
   closed system which is virtually impervious to the influence of
   non-authoritarian types. Therefore, institutional change presupposes
   individual change, which presupposes institutional change, and so on.
   Unless it can be shown, then, that institutions and human psychology
   can both be changed at the same time, hope for a genuine social
   revolution (instead of just another rotation of elites) appears to be
   unrealistic.

   Connected with this problem is the fact that the psychological root of
   the hierarchical society is addiction to power -- over other people,
   over nature, over the body and human emotions -- and that this
   addiction is highly contagious. That is, as soon as any group of people
   anywhere in the world becomes addicted to power, those within range of
   their aggression also feel compelled to embrace the structures of
   power, including centralised control over the use of deadly force, in
   order to protect themselves from their neighbours. But once these
   structures of power are adopted, authoritarian institutions become
   self-perpetuating.

   In this situation, fear becomes the underlying emotion behind the
   conservatism, conformity, and mental inertia of the majority, who in
   that state become vulnerable to the self-serving propaganda of
   authoritarian elites alleging the necessity of the state, strong
   leaders, militarism, "law and order," capitalist bosses, etc. Hence the
   simultaneous transformation of institutions and individual psychology
   becomes even more difficult to imagine.

   Serious as these obstacles may be, they do not warrant despair. To see
   why, let's note first that "paradigm shifts" in science have not
   generally derived from new developments in one field alone but from a
   convergence of cumulative developments in several different fields at
   once. For example, the Einsteinian revolution which resulted in the
   overthrow of the Newtonian paradigm was due to simultaneous progress in
   mathematics, physics, astronomy and other sciences that all influenced,
   reacted on, and cross-fertilised each other (see Thomas Kuhn, The
   Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962). Similarly, if there is
   going to be a "paradigm shift" in the social realm, i.e. from
   hierarchical to non-hierarchical institutions, it is likely to emerge
   from the convergence of a number of different socio-economic and
   political developments at the same time. We have discussed these
   developments in [3]section J.4 and so will not repeat ourselves here.
   In a hierarchical society, the oppression which authority produces
   resistance, and so hope. The "instinct for freedom" cannot be repressed
   forever.

   That is why anarchists stress the importance of direct action and
   self-help (see sections [4]J.2 and [5]J.4). By the very process of
   struggle, by practising self-management, direct action, solidarity
   people create the necessary "paradigm shift" in both themselves and
   society as a whole. In the words of Malatesta, "[o]nly freedom or the
   struggle for freedom can be the school for freedom." [Life and Ideas,
   p. 59] Thus the struggle against authority is the school of anarchy --
   it encourages libertarian tendencies in society and the transformation
   of individuals into anarchists. In a revolutionary situation, this
   process is accelerated. It is worth quoting Murray Bookchin at length
   on this subject:

     "Revolutions are profoundly educational processes, indeed veritable
     cauldrons in which all kinds of conflicting ideas and tendencies are
     sifted out in the minds of a revolutionary people. . .

     "Individuals who enter into a revolutionary process are by no means
     the same after the revolution as they were before it began. Those
     who encounter a modicum of success in revolutionary times learn more
     within a span of a few weeks or months than they might have learned
     over their lifetime in non-revolutionary times. Conventional ideas
     fall away with extraordinary rapidity; values and prejudices that
     were centuries in the making disappear almost overnight. Strikingly
     innovative ideas are quickly adopted, tested, and, where necessary,
     discarded. Even newer ideas, often flagrantly radical in character,
     are adopted with an elan that frightens ruling elites -- however
     radical the latter may profess to be -- and they soon become deeply
     rooted in the popular consciousness. Authorities hallowed by age-old
     tradition are suddenly divested of their prestige, legitimacy, and
     power to govern. . .

     "So tumultuous socially and psychologically are revolutions in
     general that they constitute a standing challenge to ideologues,
     including sociobiologists, who assert that human behaviour is fixed
     and human nature predetermined. Revolutionary changes reveal a
     remarkable flexibility in 'human nature,' yet few psychologists have
     elected to study the social and psychological tumult of revolution
     as well as the institutional changes it so often produces. Thus much
     must be said with fervent emphasis: to continue to judge the
     behaviour of a people during and after a revolution by the same
     standards one judged them by beforehand is completely myopic.

     "I wish to argue [like all anarchists] that the capacity of a
     revolution to produce far-reaching ideological and moral changes in
     a people stems primarily from the opportunity it affords ordinary,
     indeed oppressed, people to exercise popular self-management -- to
     enter directly, rapidly, and exhilaratingly into control over most
     aspects of their social and personal lives. To the extent that an
     insurrectionary people takes over the reins of power from the
     formerly hallowed elites who oppressed them and begins to
     restructure society along radically populist lines, individuals grow
     aware of latent powers within themselves that nourish their
     previously suppressed creativity, sense of self-worth, and
     solidarity. They learn that society is neither immutable nor
     sanctified, as inflexible custom had previously taught them; rather,
     it is malleable and subject, within certain limits, to change
     according to human will and desire."
     [The Third Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 6-7]

   So, social revolutions are possible. Anarchists anticipate successful
   co-operation within certain circumstance. People who are in the habit
   of taking orders from bosses are not capable of creating a new society.
   Tendencies towards freedom, self-management, co-operation and
   solidarity are not simply an act of ethical will which overcomes the
   competitive and hierarchical behaviour capitalism generates within
   those who live in it. Capitalism is, as Malatesta argued, based on
   competition -- and this includes the working class. Thus conflict is
   endemic to working class life under capitalism. However, co-operation
   is stimulated within our class by our struggles to survive in and
   resist the system. This tendency for co-operation generated by struggle
   against capitalism also produces the habits required for a free society
   -- by struggling to change the world (even a small part of it), people
   also change themselves. Direct action produces empowered and
   self-reliant people who can manage their own affairs themselves. It is
   on the liberating effects of struggle, the tendencies towards
   individual and collective self-management and direct action it
   generates, the needs and feelings for solidarity and creative solutions
   to pressing problems it produces that anarchists base their positive
   answer on whether social revolution is possible. History has shown that
   we are right. It will do so again.

J.7.3 Doesn't revolution mean violence?

   While many try and paint revolutions (and anarchists) as being violent
   by their very nature, the social revolution desired by anarchists is
   essentially non-violent. This is because, to quote Bakunin, "[i]n order
   to launch a radical revolution, it is . . . necessary to attack
   positions and things and to destroy [the institution of] property and
   the State, but there will be no need to destroy men and to condemn
   ourselves to the inevitable reaction which is unfailingly produced in
   every society by the slaughter of men." [Michael Bakunin: Selected
   Writings, pp. 168-9]

   As Bakunin noted elsewhere, the end of property is also non-violent:

     "How to smash the tyranny of capital? Destroy capital? But that
     would be to destroy all the riches accumulated on earth, all primary
     materials, all the instruments of labour, all the means of labour. .
     . Thus capital cannot and must not be destroyed. It must be
     preserved . . . there is but a single solution -- the intimate and
     complete union of capital and labour . . . the workers must obtain
     not individual but collective property in capital . . . the
     collective property of capital . . . [is] the absolutely necessary
     conditions for of the emancipation of labour and of the workers."
     [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 90-1]

   The essentially non-violent nature of anarchist ideas of social
   revolution can be seen from the Seattle General Strike of 1919. Here is
   a quote from the Mayor of Seattle (we do not think we need to say that
   he was not on the side of the strikers):

     "The so-called sympathetic Seattle strike was an attempted
     revolution. That there was no violence does not alter the fact . . .
     The intent, openly and covertly announced, was for the overthrow of
     the industrial system; here first, then everywhere . . . True, there
     were no flashing guns, no bombs, no killings. Revolution, I repeat,
     doesn't need violence. The general strike, as practised in Seattle,
     is of itself the weapon of revolution, all the more dangerous
     because quiet. To succeed, it must suspend everything; stop the
     entire life stream of a community . . . That is to say, it puts the
     government out of operation. And that is all there is to revolt --
     no matter how achieved." [quoted by Howard Zinn, A People's History
     of the United States, pp. 370-1]

   If the strikers had occupied their workplaces and local communities can
   created popular assemblies then the attempted revolution would have
   become an actual one without any use of violence at all. This indicates
   the strength of ordinary people and the relative weakness of government
   and capitalism -- they only work when they can force people to respect
   them.

   In Italy, a year latter, the occupations of the factories and land
   started. As Malatesta pointed out, "in Umanita Nova [the daily
   anarchist newspaper] we . . . said that if the movement spread to all
   sectors of industry, that is workers and peasants followed the example
   of the metallurgists, of getting rid of the bosses and taking over the
   means of production, the revolution would succeed without shedding a
   single drop of blood." Thus the "occupation of the factories and the
   land suited perfectly our programme of action." [Life and Ideas, p.
   135]

   Therefore the notion that a social revolution is necessarily violent is
   a false one. For anarchists, social revolution is essentially an act of
   self-liberation (of both the individuals involved and society as a
   whole). It has nothing to do with violence, quite the reverse, as
   anarchists see it as the means to end the rule and use of violence in
   society. Therefore anarchists hope that any revolution is essentially
   non-violent, with any violence being defensive in nature.

   Of course, many revolutions are marked by violence. However, as
   Alexander Berkman argues, this is not the aim of anarchism or the
   revolution and has far more to do with previous repression and
   domination than anarchist ideas:

     "We know that revolution begins with street disturbances and
     outbreaks; it is the initial phase which involves force and
     violence. But that is merely the spectacular prologue of the real
     revolution. The age long misery and indignity suffered by the masses
     burst into disorder and tumult, the humiliation and injustice meekly
     borne for decades find vents in facts of fury and destruction. That
     is inevitable, and it is solely the master class which is
     responsible for this preliminary character of revolution. For it is
     even more true socially than individually that 'whoever sows the
     wind will reap the whirlwind;' the greater the oppression and
     wretchedness to which the masses had been made to submit, the
     fiercer the rage [of] the social storm. All history proves it . . ."
     [ABC of Anarchism, p. 50]

   He also argues that "[m]ost people have very confused notions about
   revolution. To them it means just fighting, smashing things,
   destroying. It is the same as if rolling up your sleeves for work
   should be considered the work itself that you have to do. The fighting
   bit of the revolution is merely the rolling up of your sleeves." The
   task of the revolution is the "destruction of the existing conditions"
   and "conditions are not destroyed [by] breaking and smashing things.
   You can't destroy wage slavery by wrecking the machinery in the mills
   and factories . . . You won't destroy government by setting fire to the
   White House." He correctly points out that to think of revolution "in
   terms of violence and destruction is to misinterpret and falsify the
   whole idea of it. In practical application such a conception is bound
   to lead to disastrous results." [Op. Cit., pp. 40-1]

   Thus when anarchists like Bakunin speak of revolution as "destruction"
   they mean that the idea of authority and obedience must be destroyed,
   along with the institutions that are based on such ideas. We do not
   mean, as can be clearly seen, the destruction of people or possessions.
   Nor do we imply the glorification of violence -- quite the reserve, as
   anarchists seek to limit violence to that required for self-defence
   against oppression and authority.

   Therefore a social revolution may involve some violence. It may also
   mean no-violence at all. It depends on the revolution and how widely
   anarchist ideas are spread. One thing is sure, for anarchists social
   revolution is not synonymous violence. Indeed, violence usually occurs
   when the ruling class resists the action of the oppressed -- that is,
   when those in authority act to protect their social position.

   The wealthy and their state will do anything in their power to prevent
   having a large enough percentage of anarchists in the population to
   simply "ignore" the government and property out of existence. If things
   got that far, the government would suspend the legal rights, elections
   and round up influential subversives. The question is, what do
   anarchists do in response to these actions? If anarchists are in the
   majority or near it, then defensive violence would likely succeed. For
   example, "the people armed" crushed the fascist coup of July 19th, 1936
   in Spain and resulted in one of the most important experiments in
   anarchism the world has ever seen. This should be contrasted with the
   aftermath of the factory occupations in Italy in 1920 and the fascist
   terror which crushed the labour movement. In other words, you cannot
   just ignore the state even if the majority are acting, you need to
   abolish it and organise self-defence against attempts to re-impose it
   or capitalism.

   We discuss the question of self-defence and the protection of the
   revolution in [6]section J.7.6.

J.7.4 What would a social revolution involve?

   Social revolution necessitates putting anarchist ideas into daily
   practice. Therefore it implies that direct action, solidarity and
   self-management become increasingly the dominant form of living in a
   society. It implies the transformation of society from top to bottom.
   We can do no better than quote Errico Malatesta on what revolution
   means:

     "The Revolution is the creation of new living institutions, new
     groupings, new social relationships; it is the destruction of
     privileges and monopolies; it is the new spirit of justice, of
     brotherhood, of freedom which must renew the whole of social life,
     raise the moral level and the material conditions of the masses by
     calling on them to provide, through their direct and conscious
     action, for their own futures. Revolution is the organisation of all
     public services by those who in them in their own interest as well
     as the public's; Revolution is the destruction of all of coercive
     ties; it is the autonomy of groups, of communes, of regions;
     Revolution is the free federation brought about by a desire for
     brotherhood, by individual and collective interests, by the needs of
     production and defence; Revolution is the constitution of
     innumerable free groupings based on ideas, wishes, and tastes of all
     kinds that exist among the people; Revolution is the forming and
     disbanding of thousands of representative, district, communal,
     regional, national bodies which, without having any legislative
     power, serve to make known and to co-ordinate the desires and
     interests of people near and far and which act through information,
     advice and example. Revolution is freedom proved in the crucible of
     facts -- and lasts so long as freedom lasts. . ." [Life and Ideas,
     p. 153]

   This, of course, presents a somewhat wide vision of the revolutionary
   process. We will need to give some more concrete examples of what a
   social revolution would involve. However, before so doing, we stress
   that these are purely examples drawn from previous revolutions and are
   not written in stone. Every revolution creates its own forms of
   organisation and struggle. The next one will be no different. Just as
   we argued in [7]section I, an anarchist revolution will create its own
   forms of freedom, forms which may share aspects with previous forms but
   which are unique to themselves. All we do here is give a rough overview
   of what we expect (based on previous revolutions) to see occur in a
   social revolution. We are not predicting the future. As Kropotkin put
   it:

     "A question which we are often asked is: 'How will you organise the
     future society on Anarchist principles?' If the question were put to
     . . . someone who fancies that a group of men [or women] is able to
     organise society as they like, it would seem natural. But in the
     ears of an Anarchist, it sounds very strangely, and the only answer
     we can give to it is: 'We cannot organise you. It will depend upon
     you what sort of organisation you choose.'" [Act for Yourselves, p.
     32]

   And organise themselves they have. In each social revolution, the
   oppressed have organised themselves into many different self-managed
   organisations. These bodies include the Sections during the Great
   French Revolution, the workers councils ("soviets" or "rate") during
   the Russian and German revolutions, the industrial and rural
   collectives during the Spanish Revolution, the workers councils during
   the Hungarian revolution of 1956, assemblies and action committees
   during the 1968 revolt in France, and so on. These bodies were hardly
   uniform in nature and some were more anarchistic than others, but the
   tendency towards self-management and federation existing in them all.
   This tendency towards anarchistic solutions and organisation is not
   unsurprising, for, as Nestor Makhno argued, "[i]n carrying through the
   revolution, under the impulsion of the anarchism that is innate in
   them, the masses of humanity search for free associations. Free
   assemblies always command their sympathy. The revolutionary anarchist
   must help them to formulate this approach as best they can." [The
   Struggle Against the State and Other Essays, p. 85]

   In addition, we must stress that we are discussing an anarchist social
   revolution in this section. As we noted in [8]section I.2.2, anarchists
   recognise that any revolution will take on different forms in different
   areas and develop in different ways and at different speeds. We leave
   it up to others to describe their vision of revolution (for Marxists,
   the creation of a "workers' state" and the seizure of power by the
   "proletarian" vanguard or party, and so on).

   So what would a libertarian social revolution involve? Firstly, a
   revolution "it is not the work of one day. It means a whole period,
   mostly lasting for several years, during which the country is in a
   state of effervescence; when thousands of formerly indifferent
   spectators take a lively part in public affairs . . [and] criticises
   and repudiates the institutions which are a hindrance to free
   development; when it boldly enters upon problems which formerly seemed
   insoluble." [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., pp. 25-6] Thus, it would be a
   process in which revolutionary attitudes, ideas, actions and
   organisations spread in society until the existing system is overthrown
   and a new one takes its place. It does not come overnight. Rather it is
   an accumulative development, marked by specific events of course, but
   fundamentally it goes on in the fabric of society. For example, the
   real Russian revolution went on during the period between the 1917
   February and October insurrections when workers took over their
   workplaces, peasants seized their land and new forms of social life
   (soviets, factory committees, co-operatives, etc.) were formed and
   people lost their previous submissive attitudes to authority by using
   direct action to change their lives for the better (see The Unknown
   Revolution by Voline for more details and evidence of this
   revolutionary process in action). Similarly, the Spanish Revolution
   occurred after the 19th of July, 1936, when workers again took over
   their workplaces, peasants formed collectives and militias were
   organised to fight fascism (see Collectives in the Spanish Revolution
   by Gaston Leval for details).

   Secondly, "there must be a rapid modification of outgrown economical
   and political institutions, an overthrow of the injustices accumulated
   by centuries past, a displacement of wealth and political power." [Op.
   Cit., p. 25]

   This aspect is the key one. Without the abolition of the state and
   capitalism, not real revolution has taken place. As Bakunin argued,
   "the program of social revolution" is "the abolition of all
   exploitation and all political or juridical as well as governmental and
   bureaucratic oppression, in other words, to the abolition of all
   classes through the equalisation of economic conditions, and the
   abolition of their last buttress, the state." That is, "the total and
   definitive liberation of the proletariat from economic exploitation and
   state oppression." [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 48-9]

   We should stress here that, regardless of what Marxists may say,
   anarchists see the destruction of capitalism occurring at the same time
   as the destruction of the state. We do not aim to abolish the state
   first, then capitalism as Engels asserted we did. This perspective of a
   simultaneous political and economic revolution is clearly seen when
   Bakunin wrote that a city in revolt would "naturally make haste to
   organise itself as best it can, in revolutionary style, after the
   workers have joined into associations and made a clean sweep of all the
   instruments of labour and every kind of capital and building; armed and
   organised by streets and quartiers, they will form the revolutionary
   federation of all the quartiers, the federative commune. . . All . .
   .the revolutionary communes will then send representatives to organise
   the necessary services and arrangements for production and exchange . .
   . and to organise common defence against the enemies of the
   Revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 179]

   As can be seen from Bakunin's comments just quoted that an essential
   part of a social revolution is the "expropriation of landowners and
   capitalists for the benefit of all." This would be done by workers
   occupying their workplaces and placing them under workers'
   self-management. Individual self-managed workplaces would then federate
   on a local and industrial basis into workers' councils to co-ordinate
   joint activity, discuss common interests and issues as well as ensuring
   common ownership and universalising self-management. "We must push the
   workers to take possession of the factories, to federate among
   themselves and work for the community, and similarly the peasants
   should take over the land and the produce usurped by the landlords, and
   come to an agreement with the industrial workers on the necessary
   exchange of goods." [Errico Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 198 and p. 165]

   In this way capitalism is replaced by new economic system based on
   self-managed work. The end of hierarchy in the economy, in other words.
   These workplace assemblies and local, regional, etc., federations would
   start to organise production to meet human needs rather than capitalist
   profit. While most anarchists would like to see the introduction of
   communistic relations begin as quickly as possible in such an economy,
   most are realistic enough to recognise that tendencies towards
   libertarian communism will be depend on local conditions. As Malatesta
   argued:

     "It is then that graduation really comes into operation. We shall
     have to study all the practical problems of life: production,
     exchange, the means of communication, relations between anarchist
     groupings and those living under some kind of authority, between
     communist collectives and those living in an individualistic way;
     relations between town and country, the utilisation for the benefit
     of everyone of all natural resources of the different regions [and
     so on] . . . And in every problem [anarchists] should prefer the
     solutions which not only are economically superior but which satisfy
     the need for justice and freedom and leave the way open for future
     improvements, which other solutions might not." [Op. Cit., p. 173]

   No central government could organise such a transformation. No
   centralised body could comprehend the changes required and decide
   between the possibilities available to those involved. Hence the very
   complexity of life, and the needs of social living, will push a social
   revolution towards anarchism. "Unavoidably," argued Kropotkin, "the
   Anarchist system of organisation -- free local action and free grouping
   -- will come into play." [Op. Cit., p. 72] Without this local action
   and the free agreement between local groups to co-ordinate activity, a
   revolution would be dead in the water and fit only to produce a new
   bureaucratic class structure, as the experience of the Russian
   Revolution proves. Unless the economy is transformed from the bottom up
   by those who work within it, socialism is impossible. If it is
   re-organised from the top-down by a centralised body all that will be
   achieved is state capitalism and rule by bureaucrats instead of
   capitalists.

   Therefore, the key economic aspect of a social revolution is the end of
   capitalist oppression by the direct action of the workers themselves
   and their re-organisation of their work and the economy by their own
   actions, organisations and initiative from the bottom-up. As Malatesta
   argued:

     "To destroy radically this oppression without any danger of it
     re-emerging, all people must be convinced of their right to the
     means of production, and be prepared to exercise this basic right by
     expropriating the landowners, the industrialists and financiers, and
     putting all social wealth at the disposal of the people." [Op. Cit.,
     p. 167]

   However, the economic transformation is but part of the picture. As
   Kropotkin argued, "throughout history we see that each change in the
   economic relations of a community is accompanied by a corresponding
   change in what may be called political organisation . . . Thus, too, it
   will be with Socialism. If it contemplates a new departure in economics
   it must be prepared for a new departure in what is called political
   organisation." [Op. Cit., p. 39] Thus the anarchist social revolution
   also aims to abolish the state and create a confederation of
   self-governing communes to ensure its final elimination. To really
   destroy something you must replace it with something better. Hence
   anarchism will destroy the state by a confederation of self-managed,
   free communities (or communes).

   This destruction of the state is essential. This is because "those
   workers who want to free themselves, or even only to effectively
   improve their conditions, will be forced to defend themselves from the
   government . . . which by legalising the right to property and
   protecting it with brute force, constitutes a barrier to human
   progress, which must be beaten down . . . if one does not wish to
   remain indefinitely under present conditions or even worse." Therefore,
   "[f]rom the economic struggle one must pass to the political struggle,
   that is to the struggle against government." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p.
   195]

   Thus a social revolution will have to destroy the state bureaucracy and
   the states forces of violence and coercion (the police, armed forces,
   intelligence agencies, and so on). If this is not done then the state
   will come back and crush the revolution. Such a destruction of the
   state does not involve violence against individuals, but rather the end
   of hierarchical organisations, positions and institutions. It would
   involve, for example, the disbanding of the police, army, navy, state
   officialdom etc. and the transformation of police stations, army and
   naval bases, state bureaucracy's offices into something more useful
   (or, as in the case of prisons, their destruction). Town halls would be
   occupied and used by community and industrial groups, for example.
   Mayors' offices could be turned into creches, for example. Police
   stations, if they have not been destroyed, could, perhaps, be turned
   into storage centres for goods. In William Morris' utopian novel, News
   from Nowhere, the Houses of Parliament were turned into a manure
   storage facility. And so on. Those who used to work in such occupations
   would be asked to pursue a more fruitful way of life or leave the
   community. In this way, all harmful and useless institutions would be
   destroyed or transformed into something useful and of benefit to
   society.

   In addition, as well as the transformation/destruction of the buildings
   associated with the old state, the decision making process for the
   community previously usurped by the state would come back into the
   hands of the people. Alternative, self-managed organisations would be
   created in every community to manage community affairs. From these
   community assemblies, confederations would spring up to co-ordinate
   joint activities and interests. These neighbourhood assemblies and
   confederations would be means by which power would be dissolved in
   society and government finally eliminated in favour of freedom (both
   individual and collective).

   Ultimately, anarchism means creating positive alternatives to existing
   institutions which provide some useful function. For example, we
   propose self-management as an alternative to capitalist production. We
   propose self-governing communes to organise social life instead of the
   state. "One only destroys, and effectively and permanently," argued
   Malatesta, "that which one replaces by something else; and to put off
   to a later date the solution of problems which present themselves with
   the urgency of necessity, would be to give time to the institutions one
   is intending to abolish to recover from the shock and reassert
   themselves, perhaps under other names, but certainly with the same
   structure." [Op. Cit., p. 159] This was the failure of the Spanish
   Revolution, which ignored the state rather than abolish it via new,
   self-managed organisations (see [9]section I.8).

   Hence a social revolution would see the "[o]rganisation of social life
   by means of free association and federations of producers and
   consumers, created and modified according to the wishes of their
   members, guided by science and experience, and free from any kind of
   imposition which does not spring from natural needs, to which everyone,
   convinced by a feeling of overriding necessity, voluntarily submits."
   [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 184]

   These organisations, we must stress, are usually products of the
   revolution and the revolutionary process itself:

     "Assembly and community must arise from within the revolutionary
     process itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must be the
     formation of assembly and community, and with it, the destruction of
     power. Assembly and community must become 'fighting words,' not
     distinct panaceas. They must be created as modes of struggle against
     existing society . . . The future assemblies of people in the block,
     the neighbourhood or the district -- the revolutionary sections to
     come -- will stand on a higher social level than all the present-day
     committees, syndicates, parties and clubs adorned by the most
     resounding 'revolutionary' titles. They will be the living nuclei of
     utopia in the decomposing body of bourgeois society" In this way,
     the "specific gravity of society . . . [will] be shifted to its base
     -- the armed people in permanent assembly." [Post-Scarcity
     Anarchism, pp. 167-8 and pp. 168-9]

   Such organisations are required because, in the words of Murray
   Bookchin, "[f]reedom has its forms . . . a liberatory revolution always
   poses the question of what social forms will replace existing ones. At
   one point or another, a revolutionary people must deal with how it will
   manage the land and the factories from which it requires the means of
   life. It must deal with the manner in which it will arrive at decisions
   that affect the community as a whole. Thus if revolutionary thought is
   to be taken at all seriously, it must speak directly to the problems
   and forms of social management." [Op. Cit., p. 143] If this is not
   done, capitalism and the state will not be destroyed and the social
   revolution will fail. Only be destroying hierarchical power by
   abolishing state and capitalism by self-managed organisations can
   individuals free themselves and society.

   As well as these economic and political changes, there would be other
   changes as well -- far too many to chronicle here. For example, "[w]e
   will see to it that all empty and under-occupied houses are used so
   that no one will be without a roof over his [or her] head. We will
   hasten to abolish banks and title deeds and all that represents and
   guarantees the power of the State and capitalist privilege. And we will
   try to reorganise things in such a way that it will be impossible for
   bourgeois society to be reconstituted." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 165]
   Similarly, free associations will spring up on a whole range of issues
   and for a whole range of interests and needs. Social life will become
   transformed, as will many aspects of personal life and personal
   relationships. We cannot say in which way, bar there will be a general
   libertarian movement in all aspects of life as women resist and
   overcome sexism, gays resist and end homophobia, the young will expect
   to be treated as individuals, not property, and so on.

   Society will become more diverse, open, free and libertarian in nature.
   And, hopefully, it and the struggle that creates it will be fun --
   anarchism is about making life worth living and so any struggle must
   reflect that. The use of fun in the struggle is important. There is no
   incongruity in conducting serious business and having fun. We are sure
   this will piss off the "serious" Left no end. The aim of revolution is
   to emancipate individuals not abstractions like "the proletariat,"
   "society," "history" and so on. And having fun is part and parcel of
   that liberation. As Emma Goldman said, "If I can't dance, it's not my
   revolution." Revolutions should be "festivals of the oppressed" -- we
   cannot "resolve the anarchic, intoxicating phase that opens all the
   great revolutions of history merely into an expression of class
   interest and the opportunity to redistribute social wealth." [Murray
   Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 277f]

   Therefore a social revolution involves a transformation of society from
   the bottom up by the creative action of working class people. This
   transformation would be conducted through self-managed organisations
   which will be the basis for abolishing hierarchy, state and capitalism.
   "There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the
   revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be
   achieved by means of self-administration. . . . If we define 'power' as
   the power of man over man, power can only be destroyed by the very
   process in which man acquires power over his own life and in which he
   not only 'discovers' himself, but, more meaningfully, formulates his
   selfhood in all its social dimensions." [Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., p.
   167]

J.7.5 What is the role of anarchists in a social revolution?

   All the great social revolutions have been spontaneous. Indeed, it is
   cliche that the revolutionaries are usually the most surprised when a
   revolution breaks out. Nor do anarchists assume that a revolution will
   initially be libertarian in nature. All we assume is that there will be
   libertarian tendencies which anarchists are work within and try and
   strengthen. Therefore the role of anarchists and anarchist
   organisations is to try and push a revolution towards a social
   revolution by encouraging the tendencies we discussed in the [10]last
   section and by arguing for anarchist ideas and solutions. In the words
   of Vernon Richards:

     "We do not for one moment assume that all social revolutions are
     necessarily anarchist. But whatever form the revolution against
     authority takes, the role of anarchists is clear: that of inciting
     the people to abolish capitalistic property and the institutions
     through which it exercises its power for the exploitation of the
     majority by a minority." [Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, p. 44]

   For anarchists, their role in a social revolution is clear. They try to
   spread anarchist ideas and encourage autonomous organisation and
   activity by the oppressed. For example, during the Russian Revolution
   anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists played a key role in the factory
   committee movement for workers' self-management. They combated
   Bolshevik attempts to substitute state control for workers'
   self-management and encouraged workplace occupations and federations of
   factory committees (see Maurice Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers'
   Control for a good introduction to the movement for workers'
   self-management during the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik hostility
   to it). Similarly, they supported the soviets (councils elected by
   workers in their workplaces) but opposed their transformation from
   revolutionary bodies into state organs (and so little more than organs
   of the Communist Party and so the enemies of self-management). The
   anarchists tried to "work for their conversion from centres of
   authority and decrees into non-authoritarian centres, regulating and
   keeping things in order but not suppressing the freedom and
   independence of local workers' organisations. They must become centres
   which link together these autonomous organisations." [G. P. Maksimov in
   Paul Avrich (ed.) The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, p. 105]

   Therefore, the anarchist role, as Murray Bookchin puts it, is to
   "preserve and extend the anarchic phase that opens all the great social
   revolutions" by working "within the framework of the forms created by
   the revolution, not within the forms created by the party. What this
   means is that their commitment is to the revolutionary organs of
   self-management . . . to the social forms, not the political forms.
   Anarcho-communists [and other revolutionary anarchists] seek to
   persuade the factory committees, assemblies or soviets 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." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 215 and p. 217]

   Equally as important, "is that the people, all people, should lose
   their sheeplike instincts and habits with which their minds have been
   inculcated by an age-long slavery, and that they should learn to think
   and act freely. It is to this great task of spiritual liberation that
   anarchists must especially devote their attention." [Malatesta, Op.
   Cit., pp. 160-1] Unless people think and act for themselves, no social
   revolution is possible and anarchy will remain just a tendency with
   authoritarian societies.

   Practically, this means the encouragement of self-management and direct
   action. Anarchists thus "push the people to expropriate the bosses and
   put all goods in common and organise their daily lives themselves,
   through freely constituted associations, without waiting for orders
   from outside and refusing to nominate or recognise any government or
   constituted body in whatever guise . . . even in a provisional
   capacity, which ascribes to itself the right to lay down the law and
   impose with force its will on others." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 197]
   This is because, to quote Bakunin, anarchists do "not accept, even in
   the process of revolutionary transition, either constituent assemblies,
   provisional governments or so-called revolutionary dictatorships;
   because we are convinced that revolution is only sincere, honest and
   real in the hands of the masses, and that when it is concentrated in
   those of a few ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes
   reaction." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 237]

   As the history of every revolution shows, "revolutionary government" is
   a contradiction in terms. Government bodies mean "the transferring of
   initiative from the armed workers to a central body with executive
   powers. By removing the initiative from the workers, the responsibility
   for the conduct of the struggle and its objectives [are] also
   transferred to a governing hierarchy, and this could have no other than
   an adverse effect on the morale of the revolutionary fighters." [Vernon
   Richards, Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, pp. 42-3] Such a
   centralisation of power means the suppression of local initiatives, the
   replacing of self-management with bureaucracy and the creation of a
   new, exploitative and oppressive class of officials and party hacks.
   Only when power rests in the hands of everyone can a social revolution
   exist and a free society created. If this is not done, if the state
   replaces the self-managed associations of a free people, all that
   happens is the replacement of one class system by another. This is
   because the state is an instrument of minority rule -- it can never
   become an instrument of majority rule, its centralised, hierarchical
   and authoritarian nature excludes such a possibility (see [11]section
   H.3.7 for more discussion on this issue).

   Therefore an important role of anarchists is to undermine hierarchical
   organisation by creating self-managed ones, by keeping the management
   and direction of a struggle or revolution in the hands of those
   actually conducting it. It is their revolution, not a party's and so
   they should control and manage it. They are the ones who have to live
   with the consequences of it. "The revolution is safe, it grows and
   becomes strong," correctly argues Alexander Berkman, "as long as the
   masses feel that they are direct participants in it, that they are
   fashioning their own lives, that they are making the revolution, that
   they are the revolution. But the moment that their activities are
   usurped by a political party or are centred in some special
   organisation, revolutionary effort becomes limited to a comparatively
   small circle from the which the large masses are practically excluded.
   The natural result of that [is that] popular enthusiasm is dampened,
   interest gradually weakens, initiative languishes, creativeness wanes,
   and the revolution becomes the monopoly of a clique which presently
   turns dictator." [Op. Cit., p. 65]

   The history of every revolution proves this point, we feel, and so the
   role of anarchists (like those described in [12]section J.3) is clear
   -- to keep a revolution revolutionary by encouraging libertarian ideas,
   organisation, tactics and activity. To requote Emma Goldman:

     "No revolution can ever succeed as factor of liberation unless the
     MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with
     the PURPOSE to be achieved." [Patterns of Anarchy, p. 113]

   Anarchists, therefore, aim to keep the means in line with the goal and
   their role in any social revolution is to combat authoritarian
   tendencies and parties while encouraging working class
   self-organisation, self-activity and self-management and the spreading
   of libertarian ideas and values within society.

J.7.6 How could an anarchist revolution defend itself?

   To some, particularly Marxists, this section may seem in contradiction
   with anarchist ideas. After all, did Marx not argue in a diatribe
   against Proudhon that anarchist "abolishing the state" implies the
   "laying down of arms" by the working class? However, as will become
   very clear nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have
   always argued for defending a revolution -- by force, if necessary.
   Anarchists do not think that abolishing the state involves "laying down
   arms." We argue that Marx (and Marxists) confuse self-defence by "the
   people armed" with the state, a confusion which has horrific
   implications (as the history of the Russian Revolution shows -- see the
   appendix on [13]"What happened during the Russian Revolution?" for
   details).

   So how would an anarchist revolution (and by implication, society)
   defend itself? Firstly, we should note that it will not defend itself
   by creating a centralised body, a new state. If it did this then the
   revolution will have failed and a new class society would have been
   created (a society based on state bureaucrats and oppressed workers as
   in the Soviet Union). Thus we reject Marx's notion of "a revolutionary
   and transitory form" of state as confused in the extreme. [Marx quoted
   by Lenin, Essential Works of Lenin, p. 315] Rather, we seek libertarian
   means to defend a libertarian revolution. What would these libertarian
   means be?

   History, as well as theory, points to them. In all the major
   revolutions of this century which anarchists took part in they formed
   militias to defend freedom. For example, anarchists in many Russian
   cities formed "Black Guards" to defend their expropriated houses and
   revolutionary freedoms. In the Ukraine, Nestor Makhno helped organise a
   peasant-worker army to defend the social revolution against
   authoritarians of right and left. In the Spanish Revolution, the C.N.T.
   and F.A.I. organised militias to free those parts of Spain under
   fascist rule after the military coup in 1936.

   (As an aside, we must point out that these militias had nothing in
   common -- bar the name -- with the present "militia movement" in the
   United States. The anarchist militias were organised in a libertarian
   manner and aimed to defend an anti-statist, anti-capitalist revolution
   from pro-state, pro-capitalist forces. In contrast, the US "militia
   movement" is organised in a military fashion, defend property rights
   and want to create their own governments.)

   These anarchist militias were as self-managed as possible, with any
   "officers" elected and accountable to the troops and having the same
   pay and living conditions as them. Nor did they impose their ideas on
   others. When a militia liberated a village, town or city they called
   upon the population to organise their own affairs, as they saw fit. All
   the militia did was present suggestions and ideas to the population.
   For example, when the Makhnovists passed through a district they would
   put on posters announcing:

     "The freedom of the workers and the peasants is their own, and not
     subject to any restriction. It is up to the workers and peasants to
     act, to organise themselves, to agree among themselves in all
     aspects of their lives, as they themselves see fit and desire. . .
     The Makhnovists can do no more than give aid and counsel . . . In no
     circumstances can they, nor do they wish to, govern." [quoted by
     Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 473]

   Needless to say, the Makhnovists counselled the workers and peasants
   "to set up free peasants' and workers' councils" as well as to
   expropriate the land and means of production. They argued that
   "[f]reedom of speech, of the press and of assembly is the right of
   every toiler and any gesture contrary to that freedom constitutes an
   act of counter-revolution." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 157-8]
   The Makhnovists also organised regional congresses of peasants and
   workers to discuss revolutionary and social issues (a fact that annoyed
   the Bolsheviks, leading to Trotsky trying to ban one congress and
   arguing that "participation in said congress will be regarded as an act
   of high treason." [Op. Cit., p. 151] Little wonder workers' democracy
   withered under the Bolsheviks!).

   The Makhnovists declared principles were voluntary enlistment, the
   election of officers and self-discipline according to the rules adopted
   by each unit themselves. Remarkably effective, the Makhnovists were the
   force that defeated Denikin's army and helped defeat Wrangel. After the
   Whites were defeated, the Bolsheviks turned against the Makhnovists and
   betrayed them. However, while they existed the Makhnovists defended the
   freedom of the working class to organise themselves against both right
   and left statists. See Voline's The Unknown Revolution and Peter
   Arshinov's History of the Makhnovist Movement for more information or
   the appendix on [14]"Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an
   alternative to Bolshevism?" of this FAQ.

   A similar situation developed in Spain. After defeating the
   military/fascist coup on 19th of July, 1936, the anarchists organised
   self-managed militias to liberate those parts of Spain under Franco.
   These groups were organised in a libertarian fashion from the bottom
   up:

     "The establishment of war committees is acceptable to all confederal
     militias. We start from the individual and form groups of ten, which
     come to accommodations among themselves for small-scale operations.
     Ten such groups together make up one centuria, which appoints a
     delegate to represent it. Thirty centurias make up one column, which
     is directed by a war committee, on which the delegates from the
     centurias have their say. . . although every column retains its
     freedom of action, we arrive at co-ordination of forces, which is
     not the same thing as unity of command." [No Gods, No Masters, vol.
     2, pp. 256-7]

   Like the Makhnovists, the anarchist militias in Spain were not only
   fighting against reaction, they were fighting for a better world. As
   Durruti argued, "Our comrades on the front know for whom and for what
   they fight. They feel themselves revolutionaries and they fight, not in
   defence of more or less promised new laws, but for the conquest of the
   world, of the factories, the workshops, the means of transportation,
   their bread and the new culture." [Op. Cit., p. 248]

   When they liberated towns and villages, the militia columns urged
   workers and peasants to collectivise the land and means of production,
   to re-organise life in a libertarian fashion. All across anti-Fascist
   Spain workers and peasants did exactly that (see [15]section I.8 for
   more information). The militias only defended the workers' and
   peasants' freedom to organise their own lives as they saw fit and did
   not force them to create collectives or dictate their form.

   Unfortunately, like the Makhnovists, the C.N.T. militias were betrayed
   by their so-called allies on the left. The anarchist troops were not
   given enough arms and were left on the front to rot in inaction. The
   "unified" command by the Republican State preferred not to arm
   libertarian troops as they would use these arms to defend themselves
   and their fellow workers against the Republican and Communist led
   counter-revolution. Ultimately, the "people in arms" won the revolution
   and the "People's army" which replaced it lost the war. See Abel Paz's
   Durruti: The People Armed, Vernon Richards Lessons of the Spanish
   Revolution and George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia for more
   information.

   While the cynic may point out that, in the end, these revolutions and
   militias were defeated, it does not mean that their struggle was in
   vain or a future revolution will not succeed. That would be like
   arguing in 1940 that democracy is inferior to fascism because the
   majority of democratic states had been (temporarily) defeated by
   fascism or fascist states. It does not mean that these methods will
   fail in the future or that we should embrace apparently more
   "successful" approaches which end in the creation of a society the
   total opposite of what we desire (means determine ends, after all, and
   statist means will create statist ends and apparent "successes" -- like
   Bolshevism -- are the greatest of failures in terms of our ideas and
   ideals). All we are doing here is pointing how anarchists have defended
   revolutions in the past and that these methods were successful for a
   long time in face of tremendous opposition forces.

   Thus, in practice, anarchists have followed Malatesta's argument for
   the "creation of a voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as
   militia in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed
   attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to
   resist outside intervention by countries as yet not in a state of
   revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 166] This militia would be based on an armed
   population and "[t]he power of the people in arms can only be used in
   the defence of the revolution and the freedoms won by their militancy
   and their sacrifices." [Vernon Richards, Lessons of the Spanish
   Revolution, p. 44] It does not seek to impose a revolution, for you
   cannot impose freedom or force people to be free against their will.

   Hence anarchists would seek to defend a revolution because, while
   anarchism "is opposed to any interference with your liberty . . . [and]
   against all invasion and violence" it recognises that when "any one
   attacks you, then it is he who is invading you, he who is employing
   violence against you. You have a right to defend yourself. More than
   that, it is your duty, as an anarchist to protect your liberty, to
   resist coercion and compulsion. . . In other words, the social
   revolution will attack no one, but it will defend itself against
   invasion from any quarter." [Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism, p.
   81]

   As Berkman stresses, this revolutionary defence "must be in consonance
   with th[e] spirit [of anarchism]. Self-defence excludes all acts of
   coercion, of persecution or revenge. It is concerned only with
   repelling attack and depriving the enemy of opportunity to invade you."
   Any defence would be based on "the strength of the revolution . . .
   First and foremost, in the support of the people . . . If they feel
   that they themselves are making the revolution, that they have become
   masters of their lives, that they have gained freedom and are building
   up their welfare, then in that very sentiment you have the greatest
   strength of the revolution. . . Let them believe in the revolution, and
   they will defend it to the death." Thus the "armed workers and peasants
   are the only effective defence of the revolution." [Op. Cit., pp.
   81-81]

   Part of this strength lies in liberty, so no attempt would be made to
   "defend" the revolution against mere talk, against the mere expression
   of an opinion. To "suppress speech and press is not only a theoretical
   offence against liberty; it is a direct blow at the very foundations of
   the revolution. . . It would generate fear and distrust, would hatch
   conspiracies, and culminate in a reign of terror which has always
   killed revolution in the pass." [Op. Cit., p. 83]

   Moreover, in the case of foreign intervention, the importance of
   international solidarity is important. As Bakunin argued, "a social
   revolution cannot be a revolution in one nation alone. It is by nature
   an international revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p.
   49] Thus any foreign intervention would face the problems of solidarity
   actions and revolts on its own doorstep and not dare send its troops
   abroad for long, if at all. Ultimately, the only way to support a
   revolution is to make your own.

   Within the revolutionary area, it is the actions of liberated people
   than will defend it. Firstly, the population would be armed and so
   counter-revolutionaries would face stiff opposition to their attempts
   to recreate authority. Secondly, they would face liberated individuals
   who would reject their attempts:

     "The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for
     each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were
     at liberty, in defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In
     practical fact, territorial extension is necessary to ensure
     permanency to any given individual revolution. In speaking of the
     Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many successful
     individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the
     revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without
     having to constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an
     opposing power upholding the former system . . . Under these
     circumstance it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would
     be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part
     of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a
     state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining
     of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of
     hitherto unshaken opposition." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., pp. 87-8]

   Thus any authoritarian would face the direct action of a free people,
   of free individuals, who would refuse to co-operate with the would-be
   authorities and join in solidarity with their friends and fellow
   workers to resist them. The only way a counter-revolution could spread
   internally is if the mass of the population can become alienated from
   the revolution and this is impossible in an anarchist revolution as
   power remains in their hands. If power rests in their hands, there is
   no danger from counter-revolutionaries.

   In the end, an anarchist revolution can be defended only by applying
   its ideas as widely as possible. Its defence rests in those who make
   it. If the revolution is an expression of their needs, desires and
   hopes then it will be defended with the full passion of a free people.
   Such a revolution may be defeated by superior force, who can tell? But
   the possibility is that it will not and that is what makes it worth
   trying. To not act because of the possibility of failure is to live
   half a life. Anarchism calls upon everyone to live the kind of life
   they deserve as unique individuals and desire as human beings.
   Individually we can make a difference, together we can change the
   world.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ7.html#secj74
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ4.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ4.html
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ7.html#secj76
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secIcon.html
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci22
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ77.html#secj74
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech37
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append41.html
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append46.html
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html
