|
|
Index | What's New | Links | Introduction | Bibliography
 PDF
version of Section J.
J.2 What is direct action?
Direct action, to use Rudolf Rocker's words, is "every method of immediate
warfare by the workers [or other sections of society] against their
economic and political oppressors. Among these the outstanding are:
the strike, in all its graduations from the simple wage struggle to
the general strike; the boycott; sabotage in all its countless forms;
[occupations and sit-down strikes;] anti-militarist propaganda, and
in particularly critical cases,... armed resistance of the people
for the protection of life and liberty." [Anarcho-Syndicalism,
p. 66]
Not that anarchists think that direct action is only applicable
within the workplace. Far from it. Direct action must occur everywhere!
So, in non-workplace situations, direct action includes rent strikes,
consumer boycotts, occupations (which, of course, can include sit-in
strikes by workers), eco-tage, individual and collective non-payment
of taxes, blocking roads and holding up construction work of an anti-social
nature and so forth. Also direct action, in a workplace setting, includes
strikes and protests on social issues, not directly related to working
conditions and pay. Such activity aims to ensure the "protection
of the community against the most pernicious outgrowths of the present
system. The social strike seeks to force upon the employers a responsibility
to the public. Primarily it has in view the protection of the customers,
of whom the workers themselves [and their families] constitute the
great majority" [Op. Cit., p. 72]
Basically, direct action means that instead of getting someone else
to act for you (e.g. a politician) you act for yourself. Its essential
feature is an organised protest by ordinary people to make a change
by their own efforts. Thus Voltairine De Cleyre's excellent statement
on this topic:
"Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly and
asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions,
was a direct actionist. Some thirty years ago I recall that the Salvation
Army was vigorously practicing direct action in the maintenance of the
freedom of its members to speak, assemble, and pray. Over and over they were
arrested, fined, and imprisoned; but they kept right on singing, praying,
and marching, till they finally compelled their persecutors to let them
alone. The Industrial Workers [of the World] are now conducting the same
fight, and have, in a number of cases, compelled the officials to let them
alone by the same direct tactics.
"Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or
who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do
it with him, without going to external authorities to please do
the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative experiments
are essentially direct action.
"Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone
to settle, and went straight to the other persons involved to settle
it, either by a peaceable plan or otherwise, was a direct actionist.
Examples of such action are strikes and boycotts; many persons will
recall the action of the housewives of New York who boycotted the
butchers, and lowered the price of meat; at the present moment a
butter boycott seems looming up, as a direct reply to the price-makers
for butter.
"These actions are generally not due to any one's reasoning overmuch
on the respective merits of directness or indirectness, but are
the spontaneous retorts of those who feel oppressed by a situation.
In other words, all people are, most of the time, believers in the
principle of direct action, and practicers of it. . ." [Direct
Action]
So direct action means acting for yourself against injustice and
oppression. It can, sometimes, involve putting pressure on politicians
or companies, for example, to ensure a change in an oppressive law
or destructive practices. However, such appeals are direct action
simply because they do not assume that the parties in question we
will act for us - indeed the assumption is that change only occurs
when we act to create it. Regardless of what the action is, "if
such actions are to have the desired empowerment effect, they must
be largely self-generated, rather than being devised and directed
from above." [Martha Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, p.
33]
So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people
themselves decide upon and organise themselves which is based on their
own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates
to act for them. As such direct action is a natural expression of
liberty, of self-government for "[d]irect action against the authority
in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct
action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code,
is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism." [Emma Goldman,
Red Emma Speaks, pp. 62-63] It is clear that by acting for
yourself you are expressing the ability to govern yourself. Thus its
a means by which people can take control of their own lives. It is
a means of self-empowerment and self-liberation:
"Direct action meant that the goal of any and all these activities was
to provide ways for people to get in touch with their own powers and
capacities, to take back the power of naming themselves and their lives."
[Martha Ackelsberg, Op. Cit., p. 32]
In other words, anarchists reject the view that society is static
and that people's consciousness, values, ideas and ideals cannot be
changed. Far from it and anarchists support direct action because
it actively encourages the transformation of those who use it. Direct
action is the means of creating a new consciousness, a means of self-liberation
from the chains placed around our minds, emotions and spirits by hierarchy
and oppression.
Because direct action is the expression of liberty, the powers that
be are vitally concerned only when the oppressed use direct action
to win its demands, for it is a method which is not easy or cheap
to combat. Any hierarchical system is placed into danger when those
at the bottom start to act for themselves and, historically, people
have invariably gained more by acting directly than could have been
won by playing ring around the rosy with indirect means.
Direct action tore the chains of open slavery from humanity. Over
the centuries it has established individual rights and modified the
life and death power of the master class. Direct action won political
liberties such as the vote and free speech. Used fully, used wisely
and well, direct action can forever end injustice and the mastery
of humans by other humans.
In the sections that follow, we will indicate why anarchists are
in favour of direct action and why they are against electioneering
as a means of change.
Simply because it is effective and it has a radicalising impact on those who
practice it. As it is based on people acting for themselves, it shatters
the dependency and marginalisation created by hierarchy. As Murray
Bookchin argues, "[w]hat is even more important about direct action
is that it forms a decisive step toward recovering the personal power
over social life that the centralised, over-bearing bureaucracies
have usurped from the people . . . we not only gain a sense that we
can control the course of social events again; we recover a new sense
of selfhood and personality without which a truly free society, based
in self-activity and self-management, is utterly impossible."
[Toward an Ecological Society, p. 47]
By acting for themselves, people gain a sense of their own power
and abilities. This is essential if people are to run their own lives.
As such, direct action is the means by which individuals empower
themselves, to assert their individuality, to make themselves count
as individuals. It is the opposite of hierarchy, within which individuals
are told again and again that they are nothing, are insignificant
and must dissolve themselves into a higher power (the state, the company,
the party, the people, etc.) and feel proud in participating in the
strength and glory of this higher power. Direct action, in contrast,
is the means of asserting ones individual opinion, interests and happiness,
of fighting against self-negation:
"man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism therefore
stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all
laws and restrictions, economic, social and moral. But defiance and
resistance are illegal. Therein lies the salvation of man. Everything
illegal necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it
calls for free independent spirits, for men who are men, and who have
a bone in their back which you cannot pass your hand through." [Emma
Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, pp. 61-62]
In addition, because direct action is based around individuals solving
their own problems, by their own action, it awakens those aspects
of individuals crushed by hierarchy and oppression - such as initiative,
solidarity, imagination, self-confidence and a sense of individual
and collective power, that you do matter and count as an individual
and that you, and others like you, can change the world. Direct
Action is the means by which people can liberate themselves and educate
themselves in the ways of and skills required for self-management
and liberty. Hence:
"anarchists insisted that we learn to think and act for ourselves by joining
together in organisations in which our experience, our perception and our
activity can guide and make the change. Knowledge does not precede
experience, it flows from it. . . People learn to be free only by
exercising freedom. [As one Spanish Anarchist put it] 'We are not going
to find ourselves. . . with people ready-made for the future. . . Without
continued exercise of their faculties, there will be no free people. . .
The external revolution and the internal revolution presuppose one
another, and they must be simultaneous in order to be successful.'"
[Martha Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, pp. 32-33]
So direct action, to use Murray Bookchin's words, is "the means
whereby each individual awakens to the hidden powers within herself
and himself, to a new sense of self-confidence and self-competence;
it is the means whereby individuals take control of society directly."
[Op. Cit., p. 48]
In addition, direct action creates the need for new forms of social
organisation. These new forms of organisation will be informed and
shaped by the process of self-liberation, so be more anarchistic and
based upon self-management. Direct action, as well as liberating individuals,
can also create the free, self-managed organisations which can replace
the current hierarchical ones. In other words, direct action helps
create the new world in the shell of the old:
"direct action not only empowered those who participated in it, it also
had effects on others. . . [including] exemplary action that attracted
adherents by the power of the positive example it set. Contemporary
examples. . . include food or day-care co-ops, collectively run businesses,
sweat equity housing programmes, women's self-help health collectives, urban
squats or women's peace camps [as well as traditional examples as industrial
unions, social centres, etc.]. While such activities empower those who
engage in them, they also demonstrate to others that non-hierarchical
forms of organisation can and do exist - and that they can function
effectively." [Martha Ackelsberg, Op. Cit., p. 33]
Also, direct action such as strikes encourage and promote class
consciousness and class solidarity. According to Kropotkin, "the
strike develops the sentiment of solidarity" while for Bakunin
it "is the beginnings of the social war of the proletariat against
the bourgeoisie. . . Strikes are a valuable instrument from two points
of view. Firstly, they electrify the masses, invigorate their moral
energy and awaken in them the feeling of the deep antagonism which
exists between their interests and those of the bourgeoisie. . . secondly
they help immensely to provoke and establish between the workers of
all trades, localities and countries the consciousness and very fact
of solidarity: a twofold action, both negative and positive, which
tends to constitute directly the new world of the proletariat, opposing
it almost in an absolute way to the bourgeois world." [cited in
Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism
1872-1886, p. 256, pp. 216-217]
Direct action and the movements that used it (such as unionism)
would be the means to develop the "revolutionary intelligence of
the workers" and so ensure "emancipation through practice"
(to use Bakunin's words).
Direct action, therefore, helps to create anarchists and anarchist
alternatives within capitalism and statism. As such, it plays an essential
role in anarchist theory and activity. For anarchists, direct action
"is not a 'tactic'. . . it is a moral principle, an ideal, a sensibility.
It should imbue every aspect of our lives and behaviour and outlook."
[Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 48]
Simply because electioneering does not work. History is littered with examples
of radicals being voted into office only to become as, or even more,
conservative than the politicians they replaced.
As we have discussed previously (see section
B.2 and related sections) any government is under pressure from
two sources of power, the state bureaucracy and big business. This
ensures that any attempts at social change would be undermined and
made hollow by vested interests, assuming they even reached that level
of discussion to begin with (the de-radicalising effects of electioneering
is discussed below in section J.2.6).
Here we will highlight the power of vested interests within democratic
government.
In section B.2 we only discussed the general
nature of the state and what its role within society is (i.e. "the
preservation of the economic 'status quo,' the protection of the economic
privileges of the ruling class," in the words of Luigi Galleani).
However, as the effectiveness of the vote to secure change is now
the topic we will have to discuss how and why the state and capital
restricts and controls political action.
Taking capital to begin with, if we assume that a relatively reformist
government was elected it would soon find itself facing various economic
pressures. Either capital would disinvest, so forcing the government
to back down in the face of economic collapse, or the government in
question would control capital leaving the country and so would soon
be isolated from new investment and its currency would become worthless.
Either way, the economy would be severely damaged and the promised
"reforms" would be dead letters. In addition, this economic failure
would soon result in popular revolt which in turn would lead to a
more authoritarian state as "democracy" was protected from the people.
Far fetched? No, not really. In January, 1974, the FT Index for
the London Stock Exchange stood at 500 points. In February, the miner's
went on strike, forcing Heath to hold (and lose) a general election.
The new Labour government (which included many left-wingers in its
cabinet) talked about nationalising the banks and much heavy industry.
In August, 74, Tony Benn announced Plans to nationalise the ship building
industry. By December of that year, the FT index had fallen to 150
points. By 1976 the British Treasury was spending $100 million a day
buying back of its own money to support the pound [The London Times,
10/6/76]. The economic pressure of capitalism was at work:
"The further decline in the value of the pound has occurred despite the high
level of interest rates. . . dealers said that selling pressure against the
pound was not heavy or persistent, but there was an almost total lack of
interest amongst buyers. The drop in the pound is extremely surprising in
view of the unanimous opinion of bankers, politicians and officials that the
currency is undervalued" [The London Times, 27/5/76]
The Labour government faced with the power of international capital
ended up having to receive a temporary "bailing out" by the I.M.F.
who imposed a package of cuts and controls which translated to Labour
saying "We'll do anything you say", in the words of one economist
[Peter Donaldson, A Question of Economics, p. 89]. The social
costs of these policies was massive, with the Labour government being
forced to crack down on strikes and the weakest sectors of society
(but that's not to forget that they "cut expenditure by twice the
amount the I.M.F. were promised." [Ibid.]). In the backlash
to this, Labour lost the next election to a right-wing, pro-free market
government which continued where Labour had left off.
Or, to use a more recent example, "[t]he fund managers [who control
the flow of money between financial centres and countries] command
such vast resources that their clashes with governments in the global
marketplace usually ends up in humiliating defeat for politicians.
. . In 1992, US financier George Soros single-handedly destroyed the
British government's attempts to keep the pound in the European Exchange
Rate Mechanism (ERM). Soros effectively bet, and won, that he could
force the British government to devalue. Using his huge resources,
he engineered a run on the pound, overwhelming the Bank of England's
attempts to use its reserves to keep sterling within its ERM band.
The British government capitulated by suspending sterling's membership
of the ERM (an effective devaluation) and Soros came away from his
victory some $1bn richer. Fund managers then picked off other currencies
one by one, derailing the drive for European monetary union, which
would, incidentally, have cut their profits by making them unable
to buy and sell between the different European currencies." [Duncan
Green, The Silent Revolution, p. 124]
The fact is that capital will not invest in a country which does
not meet its approval and this is an effective weapon to control democratically
elected governments. And with the increase in globalisation of capital
over the last 30 years this weapon is even more powerful (a weapon
we may add which was improved, via company and state funded investment
and research in communication technology, precisely to facilitate
the attack on working class reforms and power in the developed world,
in other words capital ran away to teach us a lesson - see sections
C.8.1, C.8.2,
C.8.3 and D.5.3).
As far as political pressures go, we must remember that there is
a difference between the state and government. The state is the permanent
collection of institutions that have entrenched power structures and
interests. The government is made up of various politicians. It's
the institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence,
not the representatives who come and go. In other words, the state
bureaucracy has vested interests and elected politicians cannot effectively
control them. This network of behind the scenes agencies can be usefully
grouped into two parts:
"By 'the secret state' we mean. . . the security services, MI5
[the FBI in the USA], Special Branch. . . MI6 [the CIA]. By 'the permanent
government' . . . we mean the secret state plus the Cabinet Office
and upper echelons of Home and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, the
Armed Forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and
its satellite ministries; and the so-called 'Permanent Secretaries
Club,' the network of very senior civil servants - the 'Mandarins.'
In addition. . . its satellites" including M.P.s (particularly
right-wing ones), 'agents of influence' in the media, former security
services personnel, think tanks and opinion forming bodies, front
companies of the security services, and so on. [Stephen Dorril and
Robin Ramsay, Smear! Wilson and the Secret State, p. X, XI]
These bodies, while theoretically under the control of the elected
government, can effectively (via disinformation, black operations,
bureaucratic slowdowns, media attacks, etc.) ensure that any government
trying to introduce policies which the powers that be disagree with
will be stopped. In other words the state is not a neutral
body, somehow rising about vested interests and politics. It is, and
always will be, a institution which aims to protect specific sections
of society as well as its own.
An example of this "secret state" at work can be found in Smear!,
where Dorril and Ramsay document the campaign against the Labour Prime
Minister of Britain, Harold Wilson, which resulted in his resignation.
They also indicate the pressures which Labour M.P. Tony Benn was subjected
to by "his" Whitehall advisers:
"In early 1985, the campaign against Benn by the media was joined by the
secret state. The timing is interesting. In January, his Permanent Secretary
had 'declared war' and the following month began the most extraordinary
campaign of harassment any major British politician has experienced. While
this is not provable by any means, it does look as though there is a clear
causal connection between withdrawal of Prime Ministerial support, the
open hostility from the Whitehall mandarins and the onset of covert
operations." [Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsay, Op. Cit., p. 279]
Not to mention the role of the secret state in undermining reformist
and radical organisations and movements. Thus involvement goes from
pure information gathering on "subversives", to disruption and repression.
Taking the example of the US secret state, Howard Zinn notes that
in 1975
"congressional committees. . . began investigations of the FBI and CIA.
"The CIA inquiry disclosed that the CIA had gone beyond its original mission
of gathering intelligence and was conducting secret operations of
all kinds . . . [for example] the CIA - with the collusion of a
secret Committee of Forty headed by Henry Kissinger - had worked
to 'destabilize' the [democratically elected, left-wing] Chilean
government. . .
"The investigation of the FBI disclosed many years of illegal
actions to disrupt and destroy radical groups and left-wing groups
of all kinds. The FBI had sent forged letters, engaged in burglaries.
. . opened mail illegally, and in the case of Black Panther leader
Fred Hampton, seems to have conspired in murder. . .
"The investigations themselves revealed the limits of government
willingness to probe into such activities. . . [and they] submitted
its findings on the CIA to the CIA to see if there was material
the Agency wanted omitted." [A People's History of the United
States, pp. 542-3]
Also, the CIA secretly employs several hundred American academics
to write books and other materials to be used for propaganda purposes,
an important weapon in the battle for hearts and minds. In other words,
the CIA, FBI [and their equivalents in other countries] and other
state bodies can hardly be considered neutral bodies, who just follow
orders. They are a network of vested interests, with specific ideological
viewpoints and aims which usually place the wishes of the voting population
below maintaining the state-capital power structure in place.
This can be seen most dramatically in the military coup in Chile
against the democratically re-elected (left-wing) Allende government
by the military, aided by the CIA, US based corporations and the US
government cutting economic aid to the country (specifically to make
it harder for the Allende regime). The coup resulted in tens of thousands
murdered and years of terror and dictatorship, but the danger of a
pro-labour government was stopped and the business environment was
made healthy for profits. An extreme example, we know, but important
ones for any believer in freedom or the idea that the state machine
is somehow neutral and can be captured and used by left-wing parties.
Therefore we cannot expect a different group of politicians to react
in different ways to the same economic and institutional influences
and interests. Its no coincidence that left-wing, reformist parties
have introduced right-wing, pro-capitalist ("Thatcherite/Reaganite")
policies at the same time as right-wing, explicitly pro-capitalist
parties introduced them in the UK and the USA. As Clive Ponting (an
ex-British Civil Servant) points out, this is to be expected:
"the function of the political system in any country in the world is to
regulate, but not alter radically, the existing economic structure and
its linked power relationships. The great illusion of politics is that
politicians have the power to make whatever changes they like. . . On a
larger canvas what real control do the politicians in any country have
over the operation of the international monetary system, the pattern of
world trade with its built in subordination of the third world or
the operation of multi-national companies? These institutions and the
dominating mechanism that underlies them - the profit motive as a sole
measure of success - are essentially out of control and operating on
autopilot." [quoted in Alternatives, # 5, p. 10]
Of course there have been examples of quite extensive reforms which
did benefit working class people in major countries. The New Deal
in the USA and the 1945-51 Labour Governments spring to mind. Surely
these indicate that our claims above are false? Simply put, no, they
do not. Reforms can be won from the state when the dangers of not
giving in outweigh the problems associated with the reforms. Reforms
can therefore be used to save the capitalist system and the state
and even improve their operation (with, of course, the possibility
of getting rid of the reforms when they are no longer required).
For example, both the reformist governments of 1930s USA and 1940s
UK were under pressure from below, by waves of militant working class
struggle which could have developed beyond mere reformism. The waves
of sit-down strikes in the 1930s ensured the passing of pro-union
laws which while allowing workers to organise without fear of being
fired. This measure also involved the unions in running the capitalist-state
machine (and so making them responsible for controlling "unofficial"
workplace action and so ensuring profits). The nationalisation of
roughly 20% of the UK economy during the Labour administration of
1945 (the most unprofitable sections of it as well) was also the direct
result of ruling class fear. As Quintin Hogg, a Tory M.P. at the time,
said, "If you don't give the people social reforms they are going
to give you social revolution". Memories of the near revolutions
across Europe after the first war were obviously in many minds, on
both sides. Not that nationalisation was particularly feared as "socialism."
Indeed it was argued that it was the best means of improving the performance
of the British economy. As anarchists at the time noted "the real
opinions of capitalists can be seen from Stock Exchange conditions
and statements of industrialists than the Tory Front bench . . . [and
from these we] see that the owning class is not at all displeased
with the record and tendency of the Labour Party" [Neither
Nationalisation nor Privatisation: Selections from Freedom 1945-1950,
Vernon Richards (Ed), p. 9]
So, if extensive reforms have occurred, just remember what they
were in response to militant pressure from below and that we could
have got so much more.
Therefore, in general, things have little changed over the one hundred
years since this anarchist argument against electioneering was put
forward:
"in the electoral process, the working class will always be cheated and
deceived. . . if they did manage to send, one, or ten, or fifty of
them[selves to Parliament], they would become spoiled and powerless.
Furthermore, even if the majority of Parliament were composed of workers,
they could do nothing. Not only is there the senate . . . the chiefs of
the armed forces, the heads of the judiciary and of the police, who would
be against the parliamentary bills advanced by such a chamber and would
refuse to enforce laws favouring the workers (it has happened [for example
the 8 hour working day was legally created in many US states by the 1870s,
but workers had to strike for it in 1886 as it as not enforced]; but
furthermore laws are not miraculous; no law can prevent the capitalists
from exploiting the workers; no law can force them to keep their factories
open and employ workers at such and such conditions, nor force shopkeepers
to sell as a certain price, and so on." [S. Merlino, quoted by L. Galleani,
The End of Anarchism?, p. 13]
Moreover, anarchists reject voting for other reasons. The fact is
that electoral procedures are the opposite of direct action - they
are based on getting someone else to act on your behalf. Therefore,
far from empowering people and giving them a sense of confidence and
ability, electioneering dis-empowers them by creating a "leader"
figure from which changes are expected to flow. As Martin observes:
"all the
historical evidence suggests that parties are more a drag than an
impetus to radical change. One obvious problem is that parties
can be voted out. All the policy changes they brought in can simply be
reversed later.
"More important, though, is the pacifying influence of the radical party itself.
On a number of occasions, radical parties have been elected to power
as a result of popular upsurges. Time after time, the 'radical'
parties have become chains to hold back the process of radical change"
["Democracy without Elections," Reinventing Anarchy, Again,
Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 124]
This can easily be seen from the history of the various left-wing
parties. Ralph Miliband points out that labour or socialist parties,
elected in periods of social turbulence, have often acted to reassure
the ruling elite by dampening popular action that could have threatened
capitalist interests [The State in Capitalist Society, Weidenfeld
and Nicolson, 1969]. For example, the first project undertaken by
the Popular Front, elected in France in 1936, was to put an end to
strikes and occupations and generally to cool popular militancy, which
was the Front's strongest ally in coming to power. The Labour government
elected in Britain in 1945 got by with as few reforms as it could,
refusing to consider changing basic social structures. In addition,
within the first week of taking office it sent troops in to break
the dockers' strike. Labour has used troops to break strikes far more
often than the Conservatives have.
These points indicate why existing power structures cannot effectively
be challenged through elections. For one thing, elected representatives
are not mandated, which is to say they are not tied in any
binding way to particular policies, no matter what promises they have
made or what voters may prefer. Around election time, the public's
influence on politicians is strongest, but after the election, representatives
can do practically whatever they want, because there is no procedure
for instant recall. In practice it is impossible to recall
politicians before the next election, and between elections they are
continually exposed to pressure from powerful special-interest groups
-- especially business lobbyists, state bureaucracies and political
party power brokers.
Under such pressure, the tendency of politicians to break campaign
promises has become legendary. Generally, such promise breaking is
blamed on bad character, leading to periodic "throw-the-bastards-out"
fervour -- after which a new set of representatives is elected, who
also mysteriously turn out to be bastards! In reality it is the system
itself that produces "bastards," the sell-outs and shady dealing we
have come to expect from politicians. As Alex Comfort argues, political
office attracts power-hungry, authoritarian, and ruthless personalities,
or at least tends to bring out such qualities in those who are elected
(see his classic work Authority and Delinquency in the Modern State:
A Criminological Approach to the Problem of Power).
In light of modern "democracy", it is amazing that anyone takes
the system seriously enough to vote at all. And in fact, voter turnout
in the US and other nations where "democracy" is practiced in this
fashion is typically low. Nevertheless, some voters continue to participate,
pinning their hopes on new parties or trying to reform a major party.
For anarchists, this activity is pointless as it does not get at the
root of the problem. It is not politicians or parties which are the
problem, its a system which shapes them into its own image and marginalises
and alienates people due to its hierarchical and centralised nature.
No amount of party politics can change that.
However, we should make it clear that most anarchists recognise
there is a difference between voting for a government and voting in
referendum. Here we are discussing the former, electioneering, as
a means of social change. Referenda are closer to anarchist ideas
of direct democracy and are, while flawed, far better than electing
a politician to office once every four years or so.
In addition, Anarchists are not necessarily against all involvement
in electoral politics. Bakunin thought it could sometimes be useful
to participate in local elections in relatively small communities
where regular contact with representatives can maintain accountability.
This argument has been taken up by such Social Ecologists such as
Murray Bookchin who argues that anarchists, by taking part in local
elections, can use this technique to create self-governing community
assemblies. However, few anarchists support such means to create community
assemblies (see section J.5.14 for
a discussion on this).
However, in large cities and in regional or national elections,
certain processes have developed which render the term "democracy"
inappropriate. These processes include mass advertising, bribery of
voters through government projects in local areas, party "machines,"
the limitation of news coverage to two (or at most three) major parties,
and government manipulation of the news. Party machines choose candidates,
dictate platforms, and contact voters by phone campaigns. Mass advertising
"packages" candidates like commodities, selling them to voters by
emphasising personality rather than policies, while media news coverage
emphasise the "horse race" aspects of campaigns rather than policy
issues. Government spending in certain areas (or more cynically, the
announcement of new projects in such areas just before elections)
has become a standard technique for buying votes. And we have already
examined the mechanisms through which the media is made dependent
of government sources of information (see section
D.3 ), a development that obviously helps incumbents.
Therefore, for these related reasons anarchists reject the voting
as a means of change. Instead we wholeheartedly support direct action
as the means of getting improvements in the here and now as well as
the means of creating an alternative to the current system.
At its most basic, voting implies agreement with the status quo. It is worth
quoting the Scottish libertarian socialist James Kelman at length
on this:
"State propaganda insists that the reason why at least 40 percent of
the voting public don't vote at all is because they have no feelings one
way or the other. They say the same thing in the USA, where some 85
percent of the population are apparently 'apolitical' since they don't
bother registering a vote. Rejection of the political system is
inadmissible as far as the state is concerned. . . Of course the one
thing that does happen when you vote is that someone else has endorsed an
unfair political system. . . A vote for any party or any individual is
always a vote for the political system. You can interpret your vote in
whichever way you like but it remains an endorsement of the apparatus. . .
If there was any possibility that the apparatus could effect a change
in the system then they would dismantle it immediately. In other words
the political system is an integral state institution, designed and
refined to perpetuate its own existence. Ruling authority fixes the
agenda by which the public are allowed 'to enter the political arena'
and that's the fix they've settled on" [Some Recent Attacks, p.87]
We are taught from an early age that voting in elections is right
and a duty. In US schools, children elect class presidents and other
officers. Often mini-general elections are held to "educate" children
in "democracy". Periodically, election coverage monopolises the media.
We are made to feel guilty about shirking our "civic responsibility"
if we don't vote. Countries that have no elections, or only rigged
elections, are regarded as failures [Benjamin Ginsberg, The Consequences
of Consent: Elections, Citizen Control and Popular Acquiescence,
Addison-Wesley, 1982]. As a result, elections have become a quasi-religious
ritual.
As Brian Martin points out, however, "elections in practice have
served well to maintain dominant power structures such as private
property, the military, male domination, and economic inequality.
None of these has been seriously threatened through voting. It is
from the point of view of radical critics that elections are most
limiting." ["Democracy without Elections," Social Anarchism,
Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 124]
Benjamin Ginsberg has noted other ways in which elections serve
the interests of state power. Firstly, voting helps to legitimate
government; hence suffrage has often been expanded at times when there
was little popular demand for it but when mass support of government
was crucial, as during a war or revolution. Secondly, since voting
is organised and supervised by government, it comes to be seen as
the only legitimate form of political participation, thus making it
likely that any revolts by oppressed or marginalized groups will be
viewed by the general public as illegitimate. [The Consequences
of Consent]
In addition, Ginsberg argues that, historically, by enlarging the
number of people who participate in 'politics,' and by turning this
participation into the "safe" activities of campaigning and voting,
elections have reduced the risk of more radical direct action. That
is, voting disempowers the grassroots by diverting energy from grassroots
action. After all, the goal of electoral politics is to elect a representative
who will act for us. Therefore, instead taking direct action
to solve problems ourselves, action becomes indirect, though the government.
This is an insidiously easy trap to fall into, as we have been conditioned
in hierarchical society from day one into attitudes of passivity and
obedience, which gives most of us a deep-seated tendency to leave
important matters to the "experts" and "authorities."
Anarchists also criticise elections for giving citizens the false
impression that the government serves, or can serve, the people. As
Martin puts it, "the founding of the modern state a few centuries
ago was met with great resistance: people would refuse to pay taxes,
to be conscripted or to obey laws passed by national governments.
The introduction of voting and the expanded suffrage have greatly
aided the expansion of state power. Rather than seeing the system
as one of ruler and ruled, people see at least the possibility of
using state power to serve themselves. As electoral participation
has increased, the degree of resistance to taxation, military service,
and the immense variety of laws regulating behaviour, has been greatly
attenuated" [Op. Cit., p. 126]
Ironically, however, voting has legitimated the growth of state
power to such an extent that the state is now beyond any real popular
control by the form of participation that made that growth possible.
Nevertheless, as Ginsberg observes, the idea that electoral participation
means popular control of government is so deeply implanted in people's
psyches "that even the most overtly skeptical cannot fully free
themselves from it" [The Consequences of Consent, op. cit.,
p. 241].
Therefore, voting has the important political implication of encouraging
people to identify with state power and to justify the status quo.
In addition, it feeds the illusion that the state is neutral and that
electing parties to office means that people have control over their
own lives. Moreover, elections have a tendency to make people passive,
to look for salvation from above and not from their own self-activity.
As such it produces a division between leaders and led, with the voters
turned into spectators of activity, not the participants within it.
All this does not mean, obviously, that anarchists prefer dictatorship
or an "enlightened" monarchy. Far from it, democratising state power
can be an important step towards abolishing it. All anarchists agree
with Bakunin when he argued that "the most imperfect republic is
a thousand times better that even the most enlightened monarchy."
[cited by Guerin, Anarchism, p. 20] But neither does it mean
that anarchists will join in with the farce of electioneering, particularly
when there are more effective means available for changing things
for the better.
There is no doubt that voting can lead to changes in policies, which can be
a good thing as far as it goes. But such policies are formulated and
implemented within the authoritarian framework of the hierarchical
capitalist state -- a framework which itself is never open to challenge
by voting. To the contrary, voting legitimates the state framework,
ensuring that social change will be mild, gradual, and reformist rather
than rapid and radical. Indeed, the "democratic" process will (and
has) resulted in all successful political parties becoming committed
to "more of the same" or tinkering with the details at best (which
is usually the limits of any policy changes).
Therefore, given the need for radical systemic changes as soon as
possible due to the exponentially accelerating crises of modern civilisation,
working for gradual reforms within the electoral system must be seen
as a potentially deadly tactical error. In addition, it can never
get to the root causes of our problems. Anarchists reject the idea
that our problems can be solved by the very institutions that cause
them in the first place! What happens in our communities, workplaces
and environment is too important to be left to politicians - or the
ruling elite who control governments.
Because of this anarchists reject political parties and electioneering.
Electioneering has always been the death of radicalism. Political
parties are only radical when they don't stand a chance of election.
However, many social activists continue to try to use elections, so
participating in the system which disempowers the majority and so
helps create the social problems they are protesting against.
"It should be a truism that elections empower the politicians
and not the voters," Brian Martin writes, "yet many social
movements continually are drawn into electoral politics." There
are a number of reasons for this. "One is the involvement of party
members in social movements. Another is the aspirations for power
and influence by leaders in movements. Having the ear of a government
minister is a heady sensation for many; getting elected to parliament
oneself is even more of an ego boost. What is forgotten in all this
'politics of influence' is the effect on ordinary activists."
["Democracy without Elections", Reinventing Anarchy, Again,
Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.),p. 125]
Rudoph Bahro gives an example of how working "within the system"
disempowered grassroots Green activists in Germany during the early
eighties, pointing out that the coalitions into which the Greens entered
with Social Democrats in the German legislature often had the effect
of strengthening the status quo by co-opting those whose energies
might otherwise have gone into more radical and effective forms of
activism [Building the Green Movement, New Society Publishers,
1986].
No doubt the state is more complicated than the simple "executive
committee of the ruling class" pictured by Marxists. There are continual
struggles both within and without the state bureaucracies, struggles
that influence policies and empower different groups of people. Because
of this, many radical parties believe that it makes sense to work
within the state -- for example, to obtain labour, consumer, and environmental
protection laws. However, this reasoning ignores the fact that the
organisational structure of the state is not neutral.
To quote Martin again:
"The basic anarchist insight is that the structure
of the state, as a centralised administrative apparatus, is inherently
flawed from the point of view of human freedom and equality. Even though
the state can be used occasionally for valuable ends, as a means the state
is flawed and impossible to reform. The nonreformable aspects of the state
include, centrally, its monopoly over 'legitimate' violence and its
consequent power to coerce for the purpose of war, internal control,
taxation and the protection of property and bureaucratic privilege.
"The problem with voting is that the basic premises of the state are never
considered open for debate, much less challenge. The state's monopoly
over the use of violence for war is never at issue. Neither is the
state's use of violence against revolt from within. The state's
right to extract economic resources from the population is never
questioned. Neither is the state's guarantee of either private property
(under capitalism) or bureaucratic prerogative (under state socialism)
-- or both" [Op Cit., p. 127]
But, it may be said, if a new political group is radical enough,
it will be able to use state power for good purposes. While we discuss
this in more detail later in section J.2.6,
let us consider a specific case: that of the Greens, many of whom
believe that the best way to achieve their aims is to work within
the representative political system.
By pledging to use the electoral system to achieve change, Green
parties necessarily commit themselves to formulating their proposals
as legislative agendas. But once legislation is passed, the coercive
mechanisms of the state will be needed to enforce it. Therefore, Green
parties are committed to upholding state power. However, our analysis
in section B.2 indicated that the state is
a set of hierarchical institutions through which a ruling elite dominates
society and individuals. And, as we have seen in the introduction
to section E, ecologists, feminists, and
peace activists -- who are key constituencies of the Green movement
-- all need to dismantle hierarchies and domination in order
to achieve their respective aims. Therefore, since the state is not
only the largest and most powerful hierarchy but also serves to maintain
the hierarchical form of all major institutions in society (since
this form is the most suitable for achieving ruling-class interests),
the state itself is the main obstacle to the success of key constituencies
of the Green movement. Hence it is impossible in principle
for a parliamentary Green party to achieve essential objectives of
the Green movement. A similar argument would apply to any radical
party whose main emphasis was social justice, which like the goals
of feminists, radical ecologists, and peace activists, depends on
dismantling hierarchies.
And surely no one who even is remotely familiar with history will
suggest that 'radical' politicians, even if by some miracle they were
to obtain a majority in the national legislature, might dismantle
the state. It should be axiomatic by now that when a 'radical' politician
(e.g. a Lenin) says to voters, "Give me and my party state power and
we will 'wither away'" it's just more campaign rhetoric (in Lenin's
case, the ultimate campaign promise), and hence not to be taken seriously.
And, as we argued in the previous section,
radical parties are under pressure from economic and state bureaucracies
that ensure that even a sincere radical party would be powerless to
introduce significant reforms.
The only real response to the problems of representative democracy
is to urge people not to vote. This can be a valuable way of making
others aware of the limitations of the current system, which is a
necessary condition for their seriously considering the anarchist
alternative, as we have outlined in this FAQ. The implications of
abstentionism are discussed in the next
section.
At its most basic, anarchists support abstentionism because "participation
in elections means the transfer of one's will and decisions to another,
which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism."
[Emma Goldman, "Anarchists and Elections", Vanguard
III, June-July 1936, p. 19]
If you reject hierarchy and government then participating in a system
by which you elect those who will govern you is almost like adding
insult to injury! And as Luigi Galleani points out, "[b]ut whoever
has the political competence to choose his own rulers is, by implication,
also competent to do without them." [The End of Anarchism?,
p. 37] In other words, because anarchists reject the idea of authority,
we reject the idea that picking the authority (be it bosses or politicians)
makes us free. Therefore, anarchists reject governmental elections
in the name of self-government and free association. We refuse to
vote as voting is endorsing authoritarian social structures. We are
(in effect) being asked to make obligations to the state, not our
fellow citizens, and so anarchists reject the symbolic process by
which our liberty is alienated from us.
For anarchists, then, when you vote, you are choosing between rulers.
Instead of urging people to vote we raise the option of choosing to
rule yourself, to organise freely with others - in your workplace,
in your community, everywhere - as equals. The option of something
you cannot vote for, a new society. And instead of waiting for others
to do make some changes for you, anarchists urge that you do it yourself.
This is the core of the anarchist support for abstentionism.
In addition, beyond this basic anarchist rejection of elections
from a anti-statist position, anarchists also support abstentionism
as it allows us to put across our ideas at election time. It is a
fact that at election times individuals are often more interested
in politics than usual. So, by arguing for abstentionism we can get
our ideas across about the nature of the current system, how elected
politicians do not control the state bureaucracy, now the state acts
to protect capitalism and so on. In addition, it allows us to present
the ideas of direct action and encourage those disillusioned with
political parties and the current system to become anarchists by presenting
a viable alternative to the farce of politics.
And a sizeable percentage of non-voters and voters are disillusioned
with the current set-up. According to the US paper The Nation
(dated February 10, 1997):
"Protest is alive and well in the growing non-electorate, now the majority
(last fall's turnout was 48.8 percent). According to a little-noticed
post-election survey of 400 nonvoters conducting by the Polling Company, a
Washington-based firm, 38 percent didn't vote for essentially political
reasons: they 'did not care for any of the candidates' (16 percent), they
were 'fed up with the political system' (15 percent) or they 'did not feel
like candidates were interested in people like me' (7 percent). That's at
least 36 million people--almost as many as voted for Bob Dole. The nonvoting
majority is also disproportionately liberal-leaning, compared with those
who did vote."
So, anarchist abstentionism is a means of turning this negative
reaction to an unjust system into positive activity. So, anarchist
opposition to electioneering has deep political implications which
Luigi Galleani addresses when he writes that the
"anarchists' electoral abstentionism implies not
only a conception that is opposed to the principle of representation
(which is totally rejected by anarchism), it implies above all an absolute
lack of confidence in the State. . . Furthermore, anarchist abstentionism
has consequences which are much less superficial than the inert apathy
ascribed to it by the sneering careerists of 'scientific socialism'
[i.e. Marxism]. It strips the State of the constitutional fraud with
which it presents itself to the gullible as the true representative
of the whole nation, and, in so doing, exposes its essential character
as representative, procurer and policeman of the ruling classes.
"Distrust off reforms, of public power and of delegated authority, can lead
to direct action [in the class struggle]. . . It can determine the
revolutionary character of this . . . action; and, accordingly, anarchists
regard it as the best available means for preparing the masses to
manage their own personal and collective interests; and, besides,
anarchists feel that even now the working people are fully capable
of handling their own political and administrative interests."
[The End of Anarchism?, pp. 13-14]
Therefore abstentionism stresses the importance of self-activity
and self-libertarian as well as having an important educational effect
in highlighting that the state is not neutral, but serves to protect
class rule, and that meaningful change only comes from below, by direct
action. For the dominant ideas within any class society reflect the
opinion of the ruling elite of that society and so any campaign at
election times which argues for abstentionism and indicates why voting
is a farce will obviously challenge these dominant ideas. In other
words, abstentionism combined with direct action and the building
of socialist alternatives is a very effective means of changing people's
ideas and encouraging a process of self-education and, ultimately,
self-liberation.
Anarchists are aware that elections serve to legitimate government.
We have always warned that since the state is an integral part of
the system that perpetuates poverty, inequality, racism, imperialism,
sexism, environmental destruction, and war, we should not expect to
solve any of these problems by changing a few nominal state leaders
every four or five years (See P. Kropotkin, "Representative Government,"
The Commonweal, Vol. 7, 1892; Errico Malatesta, Vote: What
For?, Freedom Press, 1942). Therefore anarchists (usually) advocate
abstentionism at election time as a means of exposing the farce of
"democracy", the disempowering nature of elections and the real role
of the state.
Therefore, anarchists urge abstentionism in order to encourage
activity, not apathy. The reasons why people abstain is more
important than the act. The idea that the USA is closer to anarchy
because around 50% of people do not vote is nonsense. Abstentionism
in this case is the product of apathy and cynicism, not political
ideas. So anarchists recognise that apathetic abstentionism is not
revolutionary or an indication of anarchist sympathies. It is produced
by apathy and a general level of cynicism at all forms of political
ideas and the possibility of change.
Not voting is not enough, and anarchists urge people to organise
and resist as well. Abstentionism must be the political counterpart
of class struggle, self-activity and self-management in order to be
effective - otherwise it is as pointless as voting is.
While many radicals would be tempted to agree with our analysis of the limitations
of electioneering and voting, few would automatically agree with anarchist
abstentionist arguments. Instead, they argue that we should combine
direct action with electioneering. In that way (it is argued) we can
overcome the limitations of electioneering by invigorating the movement
with self-activity. In addition, it is argued, the state is too powerful
to leave in the hands of the enemies of the working class. A radical
politician will refuse to give the orders to crush social protest
that a right-wing, pro-capitalist one would.
This reformist idea met a nasty end in the 1900s (when, we may note,
social democracy was still considered revolutionary). In 1899, the
Socialist Alexandre Millerand joined the cabinet of the French Government.
However, nothing changed:
"thousands of strikers. . . appealed to Millerand for help, confident that,
with him in the government, the state would be on their side. Much of this
confidence was dispelled within a few years. The government did little
more for workers than its predecessors had done; soldiers and police were
still sent in to repress serious strikes." [Peter N. Stearns, Revolutionary
Syndicalism and French Labour, p. 16]
In 1910, the Socialist Prime Minister Briand used scabs and soldiers
to again break a general strike on the French railways. And these
events occurred during the period when social democratic and socialist
parties were self-proclaimed revolutionaries and arguing against anarcho-syndicalism
by using the argument that working people needed their own representatives
in office to stop troops being used against them during strikes!
Looking at the British Labour government of 1945 to 1951 we find
the same actions. What is often considered the most left-wing Labour
government ever used troops to break strikes in every year it was
in office, starting with a dockers' strike days after it became the
new government. And again in the 1970s Labour used troops to break
strikes. Indeed, the Labour Party has used troops to break strikes
more often than the right-wing Conservative Party.
In other words, while these are important arguments in favour of
radicals using elections, they ultimately fail to take into account
the nature of the state and the corrupting effect it has on radicals.
If history is anything to go by, the net effect of radicals using
elections is that by the time they are elected to office the radicals
will happily do what they claimed the right-wing would have done.
Many blame the individuals elected to office for these betrayals,
arguing that we need to elect better politicians, select better
leaders. For anarchists nothing could be more wrong as its the means
used, not the individuals involved, which is the problem.
At its most basic, electioneering results in the party using it
becoming more moderate and reformist - indeed the party often becomes
the victim of its own success. In order to gain votes, the party must
appear "moderate" and "practical" and that means working within the
system. This has meant that (to use Rudolf Rocker words):
"Participation in the politics of the bourgeois States has not
brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to Socialism, but
thanks to this method, Socialism has almost been completely crushed
and condemned to insignificance. . . Participation in parliamentary
politics has affected the Socialist Labour movement like an insidious
poison. It destroyed the belief in the necessity of constructive Socialist
activity, and, worse of all, the impulse to self-help, by inoculating
people with the ruinous delusion that salvation always comes from above."
[Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 49]
This corruption does not happen overnight. Alexander Berkman indicates
how it slowly develops when he writes:
"[At the start, the Socialist Parties] claimed that they meant to use politics
only for the purpose of propaganda. . . and took part in elections on order
to have an opportunity to advocate Socialism
"It may seem a harmless thing but it proved the undoing of Socialism. Because
nothing is truer than the means you use to attain your object soon
themselves become your object. . . [so] There is a deeper reason
for this constant and regular betrayal [than individual scoundrels
being elected] . . . no man turns scoundrel or traitor overnight.
"It is power which corrupts. . . Moreover, even with the
best intentions Socialists [who get elected]. . . find themselves
entirely powerless to accomplishing anything of a socialistic nature.
. . The demoralisation and vitiation [this brings about] take place
little by little, so gradually that one hardly notices it himself.
. . [The elected Socialist] perceives that he is regarded as a laughing
stock [by the other politicians]. . . and finds more and more difficulty
in securing the floor. . . he knows that neither by his talk nor
by his vote can he influence the proceedings . . . His speeches
don't even reach the public. . . [and so] He appeals to the voters
to elect more comrades. . . Years pass. . . [and a] number . . .
are elected. Each of them goes through the same experience. . .
[and] quickly come to the conclusion. . . [that] They must show
that they are practical men. . . that they are doing something for
their constituency. . . In this manner the situation compels them
to take a 'practical' part in the proceedings, to 'talk business,'
to fall in line with the matters actually dealt with in the legislative
body. . . Spending years in that atmosphere, enjoying good jobs
and pay, the elected Socialists have themselves become part and
parcel of the political machinery. . . With growing success in elections
and securing political power they turn more and more conservative
and content with existing conditions. Removal from the life and
suffering of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the
bourgeoisie. . . they have become what they call 'practical'. .
. Power and position have gradually stifled their conscience and
they have not the strength and honesty to swim against the current.
. . They have become the strongest bulwark of capitalism."[What
is Communist Anarchism?, pp. 78-82]
And so the "political power which they had wanted to conquer
had gradually conquered their Socialism until there was scarcely anything
left of it." [Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 50] Not that
these arguments are the result of hindsight, we may add. Bakunin was
arguing in the early 1870s that the "inevitable result [of using
elections] will be that workers' deputies, transferred to a purely
bourgeois environment, and into an atmosphere of purely bourgeois
political ideas. . . will become middle class in their outlook, perhaps
even more so than the bourgeois themselves." [The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 216] History proved Bakunin's prediction
correct (as it did with his prediction that Marxism would result in
elite rule).
History is littered with examples of radical parties becoming a
part of the system. From Marxian Social Democracy at the turn of the
19th century to the German Green Party in the 1980s, we have seen
radical parties, proclaiming the need for direct action and extra-parliamentary
activity denouncing these activities once in power. From only using
parliament as a means of spreading their message, the parties involved
end up considering votes as more important than the message. Janet
Biehl sums up the effects on the German Green Party of trying to combine
radical electioneering with direct action:
"the German Greens, once a flagship for the Green movement worldwide,
should now be considered stink normal, as their de facto boss himself
declares. Now a repository of careerists, the Greens stand out only for
the rapidity with which the old cadre of careerism, party politics, and
business-as-usual once again played itself out in their saga of
compromise and betrayal of principle. Under the superficial veil of their
old values - a very thin veil indeed, now - they can seek positions and
make compromises to their heart's content. . . They have become 'practical,'
'realistic' and 'power-orientated.' This former New Left ages badly, not
only in Germany but everywhere else. But then, it happened with the S.P.D.
[The German Social Democratic Party] in August 1914, then why not with
Die Grunen in 1991? So it did." ["Party or Movement?", Greenline, no.
89, p. 14]
This, sadly, is the end result of all such attempts. Ultimately,
supporters of using political action can only appeal to the good intentions
and character of their candidates. Anarchists, however, present an
analysis of the structures and other influences that will determine
how the character of the successful candidates will change. In other
words, in contrast to Marxists and other radicals, anarchists present
a materialist, scientific analysis of the dynamics of electioneering
and its effects on radicals. And like most forms of idealism, the
arguments of Marxists and other radicals flounder on the rocks of
reality as their theory "inevitably draws and enmeshes its partisans,
under the pretext of political tactics, into ceaseless compromises
with governments and political parties; that is, it pushes them toward
downright reaction." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 288]
However, many radicals refuse to learn this lesson of history and
keep trying to create a new party which will not repeat the saga of
compromise and betrayal which all other radical parties have suffered.
And they say that anarchists are utopian! In other words, its truly
utopian to think that "You cannot dive into a swamp and remain
clean." [Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 83] Such is the
result of rejecting (or "supplementing" with electioneering) direct
action as the means to change things, for any social movement "to
ever surrender their commitment to direct action for 'working within
the system' is to destroy their personality as socially innovative
movements. It is to dissolve back into the hopeless morass of 'mass
organisations' that seek respectability rather than change." [Murray
Bookchin, Toward an Ecological Society, p. 47]
Moreover, the use of electioneering has a centralising effect on
the movements that use it. Political actions become considered as
parliamentary activities made for the population by their representatives,
with the 'rank and file' left with no other role than that of passive
support. Only the leaders are actively involved and the main emphasis
falls upon the leaders and it soon becomes taken for granted that
they should determine policy (even ignoring conference decisions when
required - how many times have politicians turned round and done the
exact opposite of what they promised or introduced the exact opposite
of party policy?). In the end, party conferences become simply like
parliamentary elections, with party members supporting this leader
against another.
Soon the party reflects the division between manual and mental labour
so necessary for the capitalist system. Instead of working class self-activity
and self-determination, there is a substitution and a non working
class leadership acting for people replaces self-management
in social struggle and within the party itself. Electoralism strengthens
the leaders dominance over the party and the party over the people
it claims to represent. And, of course, the real causes and solutions
to the problems we face are mystified by the leadership and rarely
discussed in order to concentrate on the popular issues that will
get them elected.
And, of course, this results in radicals "instead of weakening
the false and enslaving belief in law and government . . . actually
work[ing] to strengthen the people's faith in forcible authority
and government." [A. Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 84] Which has
always proved deadly to encouraging a spirit of revolt, self-management
and self-help -- the very keys to creating change in a society.
Thus the 1870 resolution of the Spanish section of the First
International seems to have been proven to be totally correct:
"Any participation of the working class in the middle class political
government would merely consolidate the present state of affairs and
necessarily paralyse the socialist revolutionary action of the proletariat.
The Federation [of unions making up the Spanish section of the International]
is the true representative of labour, and should work outside the political
system." [quoted by Jose Pierats, Anarchists in the Spanish
Revolution,
p. 169]
Instead of trying to gain control of the state, for whatever reasons,
anarchists try to promote a culture of resistance within society that
makes the state subject to pressure from without. Or, to quote Proudhon,
we see the "problem before the labouring classes . . . [as] consist[ing
of] not in capturing, but in subduing both power and monopoly, --
that is, in generating from the bowels of the people, from the depths
of labour, a greater authority, a more potent fact, which shall envelop
capital and the state and subjugate them." For, "to combat
and reduce power, to put it in its proper place in society, it is
of no use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation
into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must
be found by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall
become its slave." [System of Economical Contradictions,
p. 398 and p. 397]
To use an analogy, the pro-election radical argues that the state
is like an person with a stick that intends to use it against you
and your friends. Then you notice that their grasp of that stick is
uncertain, and you can grab that stick away from them. If you take
the stick away from them, that does not mean you have to hit them.
After you take the weapon away from them, you can also break it in
half and throw it away. They will have been deprived of its use, and
that is the important thing.
In response the anarchist argues that instead of making plans to
take their stick, we develop our muscles and skill so that we don't
need a stick, so that we can beat them on our own. It takes longer,
sure, to build up genuinely libertarian working class organs, but
it's worth it simply because then our strength is part of us, and
it can't be taken away by someone offering to "wield it on our behalf"
(or saying that they will break the stick when they get it). And what
do socialist and radical parties do? Offer to fight on our behalf
and if we rely on others to act for us then we will be disarmed when
they do not (and instead use the stick against us). Given the fact
that power corrupts, any claim that by giving the stick of state power
to a party we can get rid of it once and for all is naive to say the
least.
And, we feel, history has proven us right time and time again.
Some Leninist socialists (like the British Socialist Workers Party and their
offshoots like ISO in the USA) argue that we should urge people to
vote for Labour and other social democratic parties. This is because
of two reasons.
Firstly, it is argued, radicals will be able to reach more people
by being seen to support popular, trade union based parties. If they
do not, then they are in danger of alienating sizeable sections of
the working class by arguing that such parties will be no better than
explicitly pro-capitalist ones.
The second argument, and the more important one, is that by electing
reformist parties into office the experience of living under such
a government will shatter whatever illusions its supporters had in
them. In other words, by getting reformist parties elected into office
they will be given the test of experience. And when they betray their
supporters to protect the status quo the experience will radicalise
those who voted for them, who will then seek out real socialist
parties (namely the likes of the SWP and ISO).
Anarchists reject these arguments for three reasons.
Firstly, it is a deeply dishonest tactic as it hides the true thoughts
of those who support the tactic. To tell the truth is a revolutionary
act. Radicals should not follow the capitalist media by telling half-truths
or distorting the facts or what they believe. They should not hide
their politics or suggest they support a system or party they are
opposed to. If this means being less popular in the short run, then
so be it. Attacking capitalism, religion, or a host of other things
can alienate people but few radicals would be so opportunistic as
to hold their tongues attacking these. In the long run being honest
about your ideas is the best way of producing a movement which aims
to get rid of a corrupt social system. Starting such a movement with
half-truths is doomed to failure.
Secondly, anarchists reject the logic of this theory. The logic
underlying this argument is that by being disillusioned by their reformist
leaders and party, voters will look for new, "better" leaders
and parties. However, this fails to go to the root of the problem,
namely the dependence on leaders which hierarchical society creates
within people. Anarchists do not want people to follow the "best"
leadership, they want them to govern themselves, to be self-active,
manage their own affairs and not follow any would-be leaders. If you
seriously think that the liberation of the oppressed is the task of
the oppressed themselves (as these Leninists claim to do) then you
must reject this tactic in favour of ones that promote working
class self-activity.
And the third reason is that this tactic has been proven to fail
time and time again. What most of its supporters seem to fail to notice
is that voters have indeed put reformist parties into office many
times (for example, there have been 7 Labour Party governments in
Britain before 1997, all of whom attacked the working class) and there
has been no movement away from them to something more radical. Lenin
suggested this tactic over 70 years ago and there has been no general
radicalisation of the voting population by this method, nor even in
reformist party militants. Indeed, ironically enough, most such activists
have left their parties when its been out of office and they have
become disgusted by the party's attempts to appear "realistic" in
order to win the next election! And this disgust often expresses itself
as a demoralisation with socialism as such, rather than with
their party's watered down version of it.
This total failure, for anarchists, is not surprising, considering
the reasons why we reject this tactic. Given that this tactic does
not attack hierarchy or dependence on leaders, does not attack the
ideology and process of voting, it will obviously fail to present
a real alternative to the voting population (who will turn to other
alternatives available at election time and not embrace direct action).
Also, the sight of a so-called "socialist" or "radical" government
managing capitalism, imposing cuts, breaking strikes and generally
attacking its supporters will damage the credibility of any form of
socialism and discredit all socialist and radical ideas in the eyes
of the population. And if the experience of the Labour Government
in Britain during the 1970s is anything to go by, it may result in
the rise of the right-wing who will capitalise on this disillusionment.
By refusing to argue that no government is "on our side," radicals
who urge us to vote reformist "without illusions" help to disarm theoretically
the people who listen to them. Working class people, surprised, confused
and disorientated by the constant "betrayals" of left-wing parties
may turn to right wing parties (who can be elected) to stop the attacks
rather than turn to direct action as the radical minority within the
working class did not attack voting as part of the problem.
How many times must we elect the same party, go through the same
process, the same betrayals before we realise this tactic does not
work? And, if it is a case of having to experience something
before people reject it, few state socialists take this argument to
its logical conclusion. We rarely hear them argue we must experience
the hell of fascism or Stalinism or the nightmare of free market capitalism
in order to ensure working class people "see through" them.
Anarchists, in contrast, say that we can argue against reformist
politics without having to associate ourselves with them by urging
people to vote for them. By arguing for abstentionism we can help
arm theoretically people who will come into conflict with these parties
once they are in office. By arguing that all governments will be forced
to attack us (due to the pressure from capital and state) and that
we have to rely on our own organisations and power to defend ourselves,
we can promote working class self-confidence in its own abilities,
and encourage the rejection of capitalism, the state and hierarchical
leadership as well as encouraging the use of direct action.
And, we may add, it is not required for radicals to associate themselves
with the farce of parliamentary propaganda in order to win people
over to our ideas. Non-anarchists will see us use direct action,
see us act, see the anarchistic alternatives we create and
see and read our propaganda. Non-anarchists can be reached quite well
without taking part or associating ourselves with parliamentary action.
Possibly. However anarchists don't just say "don't vote", we say "organise"
as well. Apathy is something anarchists have no interest in encouraging.
So, "[i]f the anarchists could persuade half the electorate to
abstain from voting this would, from an electoral point of view, contribute
to the [electoral] victory of the Right. But it would be a hollow
victory, for what government could rule when half the electorate by
not voting had expressed its lack of confidence in all governments?"
[Vernon Richards, The Impossibilities of Social Democracy,
p. 142]
In other words, whichever party was in office would have to rule
over a country in which a sizeable minority, even a majority, had
rejected government as such. This would mean that the politicians
"would be subjected to real pressures from people who believed
in their own power" and acted accordingly. So anarchists call
on people not to vote, but instead organise themselves and
be conscious of their own power both as individuals and as part of
a union with others. Only this "can command the respect of governments,
can curb the power of government as millions of crosses on bits of
paper never will." [Ibid.]
As Emma Goldman pointed out, "if the Anarchists were strong enough
to swing the elections to the Left, they must also have been strong
enough to rally the workers to a general strike, or even a series
of strikes. . . In the last analysis, the capitalist class knows too
well that officials, whether they belong to the Right or the Left,
can be bought. Or they are of no consequence to their pledge."
[Vision on Fire, p. 90]
The mass of the population, however, cannot be bought off and if
they are willing and able to resist then they can become a power second
to none. Only by organising, fighting back and practicing solidarity
where we live and work can we really change things. That is
where our power lies, that is where we can create a real
alternative. By creating a network of self-managed, pro-active community
and workplace organisations we can impose by direct action that which
politicians can never give us from Parliament. And only such a movement
can stop the attacks upon us by whoever gets into office. A government
(left or right) which faces a mass movement based upon direct action
and solidarity will always think twice before proposing cuts or introducing
authoritarian laws.
Of course, all the parties claim that they are better than the others
and this is the logic of this question - namely, we must vote for
the lesser evil as the right-wing in office will be terrible. But
what this forgets is that the lesser evil is still an evil. What happens
is that instead of the greater evil attacking us, we get the lesser
evil doing what the right-wing was going to do. And, since we are
discussing the "lesser evil," let us not forget it was the "lesser
evil" of the Democrats (in the USA) and Labour (in the UK) who introduced
the monetarist and other policies that Reagan and Thatcher made their
own (and we may add that the US Air Traffic Controllers union endorsed
Reagan against Carter in 1980 because they thought they would get
a better deal out of the Republicans. Reagan then went on to bust
the union once in office). Simply put, we cannot expect a different
group of politicians to react differently to the same economic and
political pressures and influences.
So, voting for other politicians will make little difference. The
reality is that politicians are puppets. As we argued above (in section
J.2.2) real power in the state does not lie with politicians,
but instead within the state bureaucracy and big business. Faced with
these powers, we have seen left-wing governments from Spain to New
Zealand introduce right-wing policies. So even if we elected a radical
party, they would be powerless to change anything important and soon
be forced to attack us in the interests of capitalism. Politicians
come and go, but the state bureaucracy and big business remain forever!
Therefore we cannot rely on voting for the lesser evil to safe us
from the possible dangers of a right-wing election victory brought
about by abstentionism. All we can hope for is that no matter who
gets in, the population will resist the government because it knows
and can use its real power - direct action. For the "only limit
to the oppression of government is the power with which the people
show themselves capable of opposing it." [Errico Malatesta, Life
and Ideas, p. 196] Hence Vernon Richards:
"If the anarchist movement has a role to play in practical politics
it is surely that of suggesting to, and persuading, as many people
as possible that their freedom from the Hilters, Francos and the
rest, depends not on the right to vote or securing a majority of
votes 'for the candidate of ones choice,' but on evolving new
forms of political and social organisation which aim at the direct
participation of the people, with the consequent weakening of the
power, as well of the social role, of government in the life of
the community." [The Raven, no. 14, pp. 177-8]
We discuss what new forms of political and social organisations
anarchists encourage in section J.5.
While anarchists reject electioneering and voting, it does not mean that we
are politically apathetic. Indeed, part of the reason why anarchists
reject voting is because we think that voting is not part of the solution,
its part of the problem. This is because it endorses an unjust and
unfree political system and makes us look to others to fight our battles
for us. It blocks constructive self-activity and direct action.
It stops the building of alternatives in our communities and
workplaces. Voting breeds apathy and apathy is our worse enemy.
Given that we have had universal suffrage for well over 50 years
in many countries and we have seen the rise of Labour and Radical
parties aiming to use that system to effect change in a socialistic
manner, it seems strange that we are probably further away from socialism
than when they started. The simple fact is that these parties have
spent so much time trying to win elections that they have stopped
even thinking about creating socialist alternatives in our communities
and workplaces. That is in itself enough to prove that electioneering,
far from eliminating apathy, in fact helps to create it.
So, because of this, anarchists argue that the only way to not waste
your vote is to spoil it! We are the only political movement who argue
that nothing will change unless you act for yourself, take back the
power and fight the system directly. Only direct action breaks
down apathy and gets results - and its the first steps towards real
freedom, towards a free and just society.
Therefore anarchists are the first to point out that not voting
is not enough - we need to actively struggle for an alternative to
both voting and the current system. Just as the right to vote
was won after a long series of struggles, so the creation of a free,
decentralised, self-managed, libertarian socialist society will be
the product of social struggle.
Anarchists are the last people to deny the importance of political
liberties or the importance in wining the right to vote. The question
we must ask is whether it is a more a fitting tribute to the millions
of people who used direct action, fought and suffered for the right
to vote to use that victory to endorse a deeply unfair and undemocratic
system or to use other means (indeed the means they used to win the
vote) to create a system based upon true popular self-government?
If we are true to our (and their) desire for a real, meaningful democracy,
we would have to reject political action in favour of direct action.
So, if we desire a truly libertarian and democratic society then its
clear that the vote will not achieve it (and indeed put back the struggle
for such a society).
This obviously gives an idea of what anarchists do instead of voting,
we agitate, organise and educate. While we will discuss the various
alternatives anarchists propose and attempt to organise in more detail
in section J.5 (What alternative social organisations
do anarchists create?) it is useful to give a brief introduction
to anarchist activity here, activity which bases itself on the two
broad strategies of encouraging direct action and building alternatives
where we live and work.
Taking the first strategy, anarchists say that by using direct action
we can force politicians to respect the wishes of the people. For
example, if a government or boss tries to limit free speech, then
anarchists would try to encourage a free speech fight to break the
laws in question until such time as they were revoked. If a government
or landlord refuses to limit rent increases or improve safety requirements
for accommodation, anarchists would organise squats and rent strikes.
In the case of environmental destruction, anarchists would support
and encourage attempts at halting the damage by mass trespassing on
sites, blocking the routes of developments, organising strikes and
so on. If a boss refuses to introduce an 8 hour day, then workers
should form a union and go on strike or stop working after 8 hours.
Unlike laws, the boss cannot ignore direct action (and if such action
is successful, the state will hurry to pass a law about it).
Similarly, strikes combined with social protest would be effective
means of stopping authoritarian laws being passed. For example anti-union
laws would be best fought by strike action and community boycotts
(and given the utterly ineffectual defence pursued by pro-labour parties
using political action to stop anti-union laws who can seriously say
that the anarchist way would be any worse?). And of course collective
non-payment of taxes would ensure the end of unpopular government
decisions. The example of the poll tax rebellion in the UK in the
late in 1980s shows the power of such direct action. The government
could happily handle hours of speeches by opposition politicians but
they could not ignore social protest (and we must add that the Labour
Party which claimed to oppose the tax happily let the councils controlled
by them introduce the tax and arrest non-payers).
As Noam Chomsky argues, "[w]ithin the constraints of existing
state institutions, policies will be determined by people representing
centres of concentrated power in the private economy, people who,
in their institutional roles, will not be swayed by moral appeals
but by the costs consequent upon the decisions they make -- not because
they are 'bad people,' but because that is what the institutional
roles demands." He continues by arguing that "[t]hose who own
and manage the society want a disciplined, apathetic and submissive
public that will not challenge their privilege and the orderly world
in which it thrives. The ordinary citizen need not grant them this
gift. Enhancing the Crisis of Democracy by organisation and political
engagement is itself a threat to power, a reason to undertake it quite
apart from its crucial importance in itself as an essential step towards
social change." [Turning the Tide, p. 251-2]
In this way, by encouraging social protest, any government would
think twice before pursuing authoritarian, destructive and unpopular
policies. In the final analysis, governments can and will ignore the
talk of opposition politicians, but they cannot ignore social action
for very long. In the words of a Spanish anarchosyndicalist, anarchists
"do not ask for any concessions from the government. Our mission and our
duty is to impose from the streets that which ministers and deputies are
incapable of realising in parliament."[quoted by Graham Kelsey,
Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State, p. 79]
The second strategy of building alternatives flows naturally from
the first. Any form of campaign requires organisation and by organising
in an anarchist manner we build organisations that "bear in them
the living seed of the new society which is replace the old world"
(to use Bakunin's words). In organising strikes in the workplace and
community we can create a network of activists and union members who
can encourage a spirit of revolt against authority. By creating assemblies
where we live and work we can create an effective countering power
to the state and capital. Such a union, as the anarchists in Spain
and Italy proved, can be the focal point for recreating self-managed
schools, social centres and so on. In this way the local community
can ensure that it has sufficient independent, self-managed resources
available to educate its members. Also, combined with credit unions
(or mutual banks), cooperative workplaces and stores, a self-managed
infrastructure could be created which would ensure that people can
directly provide for their own needs without having to rely on capitalists
or governments.
In other words, an essential part of anarchist activity is (in the
words of a C.N.T. militant):
"We must create that part of libertarian communism which can be created
within bourgeois society and do so precisely to combat that society with
our own special weapons." [quoted Op. Cit., p. 79]
So, far from doing nothing, by not voting the anarchist actively encourages
alternatives. As the British anarchist John Turner argued, anarchists
"have a line to work upon, to teach the people self-reliance, to
urge them to take part in non-political [i.e. non-electoral] movements
directly started by themselves for themselves. . . as soon as people
learn to rely upon themselves they will act for themselves. . . We
teach the people to place their faith in themselves, we go on the
lines of self-help. We teach them to form their own committees of
management, to repudiate their masters, to despise the laws of the
country. . ." [quoted by John Quail, The Slow Burning Fuse,
p. 87] In this way we encourage self-activity, self-organisation and
self-help -- the opposite of apathy and doing nothing.
But what about government policies which actually do help people?
While anarchists would "hesitate to condemn those measures taken
by governments which obviously benefited the people, unless we saw
the immediate possibility of people carrying them out for themselves.
This would not inhibit us from declaring at the same time that what
initiatives governments take would be more successfully taken by the
people themselves if they put their minds to the same problems. .
. to build up a hospital service or a transport system, for instance,
from local needs into a national organisation, by agreement and consent
at all levels is surely more economical as well as efficient than
one which is conceived at top level [by the state]. . . where Treasury,
political and other pressures, not necessarily connected with what
we would describe as needs, influence the shaping of policies."
[The Raven, no. 14, p. 179]
Ultimately, what the state and capital gives, they can also take
away. What we build by our own self-activity can last as long as we
want it to and act to protect it. And anarchists are convinced that:
"The future belongs to those who continue daringly, consistently, to fight
power and governmental authority. The future belongs to us and to our
social philosophy. For it is the only social ideal that teaches independent
thinking and direct participation of the workers in their economic struggle
[and working class people in their social struggles, we may add]. For it is
only through he organized economic [and social] strength of the masses that
they can and will do away with the capitalist system and all the wrongs
and injustices it contains. Any diversion from this stand will only retard
our movement and make it a stepping stone for political climbers." [Emma
Goldman, Vision on Fire, p. 92]
No. Far from it. The "apolitical" nature of anarchism is Marxist nonsense.
As it desires to fundamentally change society, anarchism can be nothing
but political. However, anarchism does reject (as we have seen) "normal"
political activity as ineffectual and corrupting. However, many (particularly
Marxists) imply this reject of the con of capitalist politics means
that anarchists concentration on purely "economic" issues like wages,
working conditions and so forth. And, by so doing, Marxists claim
that anarchists leave the political agenda to be dominated by capitalist
ideology, with disastrous results for the working class.
This view, however, is totally wrong. Indeed, Bakunin explicitly
rejected the idea that working people could ignore politics and actually
agreed with the Marxists that political indifference only led to capitalist
control of the labour movement:
"[some of] the workers in Germany . . .[were organized in] a kind of
federation of small associations. . . 'Self-help'. . . was its slogan,
in the sense that labouring people were persistently advised not to
anticipate either deliverance or help from the state and the government,
but only from their own efforts. This advise would have been excellent
had it not been accompanied by the false assurance that liberation for
the labouring people is possible under current conditions of social
organisation . . . Under this delusion. . . the workers subject to [this]
influence were supposed to disengage themselves systematically from all
political and social concerns and questions about the state, property,
and so forth. . . [This] completely subordinated the proletariat to the
bourgeoisie which exploits it and for which it was to remain an obedient
and mindless tool." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 174]
In addition, Bakunin argued that the labour movement (and so the
anarchist movement) would have to take into account political ideas
and struggles but to do so in a working class way:
"The International does not reject politics of a general kind; it
will be compelled to intervene in politics so long as it is forced
to struggle against the bourgeoisie. It rejects only bourgeois
politics." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 313]
So, anarchists reject capitalist politics (i.e. electioneering),
but we do not ignore politics nor wider political discussion. Anarchists
have always recognised the importance of political debate and ideas
in social movements. As Bakunin argued should "the International
[an international organisation of working class unions and groups].
. . cease to concern itself with political and philosophical questions?
Would [it] . . . ignore progress in the world of thought as well as
the events which accompany or arise from the political struggle in
and between states[?]. . . We hasten to say that it is absolutely
impossible to ignore political and philosophical questions. An exclusive
pre-occupation with economic questions would be fatal for the proletariat.
. . [I]t is impossible for the workers to stop there without renouncing
their humanity and depriving themselves of the intellectual and moral
power which is so necessary for the conquest of their economic rights"
[Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 301]
Nor do anarchists ignore elections. As Vernon Richards argues, anarchists
"cannot be uninterested in . . . election results, whatever their
view about the demerits of the contending Parties. The fact that the
anarchist movement has campaigned to persuade people not to use their
vote is proof of our commitment and interest. If there is, say, a
60 per cent. poll we will not assume that the 40 per cent. abstentions
are anarchists, but we would surely be justified in drawing the conclusion
that among the 40 per cent. there are a sizeable minority who have
lost faith in political parties and were looking for other instruments,
other values." [The Impossibilities of Social Democracy,
p. 141]
Thus the charge anarchists are apolitical or indifferent to politics
(even capitalist politics) is a myth. Rather, "we are not concerned
with choosing between governments but with creating the situation
where government can no longer operate, because only then will we
organise locally, regionally, nationally and internationally to satisfy
real needs and common aspirations." For "so long as we have
capitalism and government, the job of anarchists is to fight both,
and at the same time encourage people to take what steps they can
to run their own lives." [Vernon Richards, The Raven, no.
14, p. 179]
Part of this process will be the discussion of political, social
and economic issues in whatever self-managed organisations people
create in their communities and workplaces (as Bakunin argued) and
the use of these organisations to fight for (political, social and
economic) improvements and reforms in the here and now using direct
action and solidarity.
This means, as Rudolf Rocker points out, anarchists desire a unification
of political and economic struggles as the two as inseparable:
"[T]he Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism
must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power,
for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with
political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the
domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition
of the other." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 15]
Such a unification must take place on the social and economic field,
not the political, as that is where the working class is strongest.
In other words anarchists "are not in any way opposed to the political
struggle, but in their opinion this struggle. . . must take the form
of direct action. . . It would. . . be absurd for them [the working
class] to overlook the importance of the political struggle. Every
event that affects the live of the community is of a political nature.
In this sense every important economic action. . . is also a political
action and, moreover, one of incomparably greater importance than
any parliamentary proceeding." [Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit.,
pp. 65-66] Hence the comments in the C.N.T.'s newspaper Solidaridad
Obrera:
"Does anyone not know that we want to participate in public life? Does
anyone not know that we have always done so? Yes, we want to participate.
With our organisations. With our papers. Without intermediaries, delegates
or representatives. No. We will not go to the Town Hall, to the Provincial
Capitol, to Parliament." [quoted by Jose Pierats, Anarchists in the
Spanish Revolution, p. 173]
So, anarchists reject the idea that political and economic struggles
can be divided. Such an argument just reproduces the artificially
created division of labour between mental and physical activity of
capitalism within working class organisations and within anti-capitalist
movements. We say that we should not separate out politics into some
form of specialised activity that only certain people (i.e. our "representatives")
can do. Instead, anarchists argue that political struggles, ideas
and debates must be brought into the social and economic
organisations of our class where they must be debated freely by all
members as they see fit and that political and economic struggle and
change must go hand in hand.
History indicates that any attempt at taking social and economic
issues into political parties has resulting in wasted energy and the
watering down of these issues into pure reformism. In the words of
Bakunin, such activity suggests that "a political revolution should
precede a social revolution... [which] is a great and fatal error,
because every political revolution taking place prior to and consequently
without a social revolution must necessarily be a bourgeois revolution,
and a bourgeois revolution can only be instrumental in bringing about
bourgeois Socialism", i.e. State Capitalism. [The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 289]
We have discussed this process of socialist parties becoming reformist
in section J.2.6 and will not repeat
ourselves here. Only by rejecting the artificial divisions of capitalist
society can we remain true to our ideals of liberty, equality and
solidarity. Anarchists "maintain that the State organisation, having
been the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising
their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve
to destroy these privileges." [Peter Kropotkin, Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 170]. Every example of radicals using
the state has resulted in them being changed by the system instead
of them changing it and, to use Bakunin's words, "tied the proletariat
to the bourgeois towline" (i.e. resulted in working class movements
becoming dominated by capitalist ideas and activity - becoming "realistic"
and "practical").
Therefore Anarchist argue that such a union of political ideas and
social organisation and activity is essential for promoting radical
politics as it "digs a chasm between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat
and places the proletariat outside the activity and political conniving
of all parties within the State. . . in placing itself outside all
bourgeois politics, the proletariat necessarily turns against it."
So, by "placing the proletariat outside the politics in the State
and of the bourgeois world, [the union movement] thereby constructed
a new world, the world of the united proletarians of all lands."
[Michael Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 303, p. 305]
In addition, so-called "economic" struggles do not occur in a social
vacuum. They take place in a social and political context and so,
necessarily, there can exist an separation of political and economic
struggles only in the mind. Strikers or eco-warriors, for example,
face the power of the state enforcing laws which protect the power
of employers and polluters. This necessarily has a "political" impact
on those involved in struggle. As Bakunin argued social struggle results
in "the spontaneous and direct development of philosophical and
sociological in the International [i.e. union/social movement], ideas
which inevitably develop side by side with and are produced by the
first two movements [of strikes and union organising]" [Op.
Cit., p. 304]. By channeling any "political" conclusions drawn
by those involved in struggle into electoral politics, this development
of political ideas and discussion will be distorted into discussions
of what is possible in the current system, and so the radical impact
of direct action and social struggle is weakened.
Therefore anarchists reject electioneering not because they are
"apolitical" but because they do not desire to see politics remain
a thing purely for politicians and experts. Political issues are far
too important to leave to such people. Anarchists desire to see political
discussion and change develop from the bottom up, this is hardly "apolitical"
- in fact with our desire to see ordinary people directly discuss
the issues that affect them, act to change things by their own action
and draw their own conclusions from their own activity anarchists
are very "political." The process of individual and social liberation
is the most political activity we can think of!
|
