Anarchism

Anarchafeminism

Anarchist University

Through the Looking Glass: Anarchist adventures at Marxism 2001

by Iain McKay

Considering the attempts by the SWP to monopolise and colonise the anti-globalisation movement, I thought that it would be useful to attend Marxism 2001. After all, given the events of the past few years (J18, Seattle, May Day, etc.) I thought that it may draw some real people rather than a bunch of party hacks. Armed with two leaflets and some copies of Black Flag and Freedom, I headed off to the event.

Day One

My first political discussion (if you can call it that) was with a Spartacus League member outside the registration building. I was handing out a leaflet (on why Leninism is most definitely *not* "Socialism from Below" -- http://struggle.ws/pdf/alternative_lenin01.html) when she asked me what kind of anarchist I was and whether I thought that revolt by "disorganised individuals" was enough to win a revolution. I explained that anarchists from Bakunin on supported workers councils as the means of revolution and asked if she knew that. She said she did, so I asked why, then, the nonsense about "disorganised individuals." She then changed track and asked why I opposed Marxism. I said that I did not want to change one set of bosses with another.

But you need leadership, she said, and Trotskyists do not aim for the leaders being new bosses. I then pointed her to numerous quotes in my leaflet by Lenin and Trotsky on the need for party dictatorship (including the classic one by Trotsky that "the revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution" and stressed the "its own" bit). I then started to discuss the disbanding of soviets with elected non-Bolshevik majorities in the spring of 1918, at which point she had to go.

After handing out a few more leaflets, I went to Alex Callinicos meeting on "Equality." My contribution was simple: There is no equality in a state and so equality means anarchism. I gave a few examples (no equality between the Cheka and striking workers, no equality in power between the party leaders and the workers). I quoted Lenin from Left-Wing communism (the party "is directed by a Central Committee of nineteen . . . Not a single important issue is decided by any political or organisational question is decided by any State institution . . . without the guiding instructions of the Central Committee of the Party"). I indicated Trotsky's abolition by decree of soldier democracy and Lenin's replacement of workers control by one-man management as examples of the lack of equality under Bolshevism. I argued that state ownership and private ownership were basically the same, and gave the example of striking workers in Russia being locked out of the factories by the Bolsheviks and so subject to the same inequalities of economic power as in capitalism. This political inequality in power, I noted, soon became a source of economic inequality.

The near silence that marked by departure from the microphone surprised even me. The next contributor informed the faithful that what I had said "was not true," even though it all was. Nothing like a bit of reality denial! Comrade Alex, needless to say, misinterpreted my position (no, comrade, anarchists do not believe that inequalities in political power is the only source of economic inequality). Nor did he really address my points (and he claimed that Zed Magazine's Michael Albert was an anarchist, which Albert would be as surprised as I was to discover. However, it does indicate the general level of accuracy at the event). His major point in reply was that Lenin was not happy about this domination by 19 people, although of course the quote said nothing of the kind. It was from Left- Wing Communism where used it as evidence in his Lenin argument that the "vanguard of the proletariat" would "seize power" and that to draw a difference between the dictatorship of the masses and of leaders was "childish nonsense." However, the 19 Central Committee members would appear again...

I wasn't the only anarchist there, of course. The Anarchist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk/) had a stall and were handing out their bulletin Resistance (http://burn.ucsd.edu/~acf/res/index.html) and a special Globalise Resistance spoof leaflet Desist (http://burn.ucsd.edu/~acf/desist.pdf). Other comrades were handing out leaflets for the anarchist bookfair (Saturday, 20th October, 2001 Camden Centre, Euston Road, London -- www.anarchistbookfair.org). I had a quick chat with them and they were kind enough to take some of my leaflets for their stall and come along to hand stuff outside the SWP's "Marxism and Anarchism" meeting, the next one I attended.

This meeting had Pat Stack as main speaker. It was just a repeat of his recent article from Socialist Review (as I had hoped, to be honest, as one of my leaflets was a reply to that article -- and it can be found at www.struggle.ws/wsm/supplements/pdf_swp_anar00.html).

To give you an idea of what the SWP considers "debate" I will recount its format. Pat Stack gets to speak for 40-45 minutes on anarchism (with at least one lie, error or distortion every sentence). The contributors from the floor get three minutes to make their contribution. Three whole minutes to reply (wow, true equality!). Debate the issues? How can you when you do not have time to correct the lies?

One thing I did get confirmed was my guess that Stack had just based his account of anarchism on a (very selectively quoted) Paul Avrich book, Anarchist Portraits. He even had it with him at the meeting and quoted from it. Nothing like going to the source material to build a case!

Three whole minutes to refute 45 minutes of garbage is difficult of course. So I concentrated on the most disgraceful slander, namely that anarchists do not see collective class struggle as the means of social revolution. As I expected, Stack quoted Bakunin saying that the "uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate" were the "flower of the proletariat." I countered with some historical context (in 1870, over 60% of working people in Spain were illiterate, for example). I then quoted from the article from which this quote is extracted. In it Bakunin argues that the International Workingmen's Association "to be a real power . . . must organise the immense majority of the proletariat of Europe, of America, of all lands," that "the international organisation of economic conflict against capitalism [was] the true aim of this association" and that it was "necessary to unify the scattered forces of the proletariat into an International organisation, a revolutionary power directed against the entrenched power of the bourgeoisie." This, of course, made a mockery of Stack's assertion that Bakunin thought that "skilled artisans and organised factory workers" were not the "source of the destruction of capitalism." This, of course, would soon have been apparent if he had actually been bothered to read any Bakunin before spouting off about his ideas.

I also pointed out that far from arguing for an "instinctive" socialism, as Stack claimed, Bakunin had actually stressed that the class struggle, particularly strikes, were essential for transforming instinct into conscious socialist thought. But I suppose that is what you get when you base yourself on secondary sources.

For Kropotkin, I pointed out Stacks' examples of what Kropotkin thought were "mutual aid" were not, in fact, actually in Mutual Aid, but that strikes and unions were. He even quoted Avrich, who also made it clear that they were not examples of mutual aid either (Stack cannot get even use the secondary source material correctly!). I stressed that for Kropotkin, mutual aid (i.e. solidarity) was essential in the hostile environment of capitalism and in the class struggle - as would be clear from reading his work, which Stack obviously had never done. I then provided some quotes from Kropotkin on collective class struggle:

"the workers will have to . . . take over all social wealth so as to put it into common ownership. This revolution can only be carried out by the workers themselves."

Anarchists "endeavour to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital."

"The chief aim of anarchism is to awaken the constructive powers of the labouring masses . . . [and] advise taking an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on the *direct* struggle of labour against capital and its protector, - the State."

Yes, indeed, Kropotkin did not think collective class struggle was the means of social revolution, as these and numerous other quotes indicate. But why let facts get in the way of good rant, comrade Stack?

I did get the pleasure of calling Stack a liar to his face, which was nice.

What happened next is interesting. One SWP member said that the anarchist literature being handed out was suggesting that Leninists wanted to impose some horrible dictatorship over the working class, but "that was not true." Never mind all those quotes by Lenin and Trotsky on the need for party dictatorship then! Obviously Lenin was just pulling our leg when he stated "the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible in any other way but through the dictatorship of the Communist Party."

When Stack summed up, he stated that he had never said that anarchists rejected collective struggle. Funny, then, that he stated that, for anarchists, "it follows that if class conflict is not the motor of change, the working class is not the agent and collective struggle not the means." Obviously he, like Lenin, was just joking with us - perhaps the SWP will change its name to the Comical Party?

He also raised that issue of the 19 Central Committee members running Russia. He said that Lenin did not like it (not that you could tell this from Left-wing Communism, indeed the opposite is the case, but why let some facts get in the way? After all, they haven't before). Stalin, he informed us, get rid of that and replaced it with one man dictatorship. But, then again, Lenin did stress the need for one-man management (armed with dictatorial powers) for the workers. Stalin was just introducing that principal within the central committee. If its good enough for the proles, why not the vanguard?

And the major difference between Lenin's regime and Stalin's? Well, Lenin introduced lots of things Stack liked, while Stalin did the opposite. Which, incidentally, just proved the anarchist point. The slogan was "all power to the Soviets", *not* "all power to Lenin." I also handed out hundreds of the second leaflet, which exposed the distortions and lies contained in Stack's Socialist Review article.

So remember, 45 minutes speeches followed by ten three minute contributions, followed by 10-15 minutes summing up by the speaker, is what the SWP thinks is a "debate." And remember, equality means following the orders of the Central Committee and the comrade from the Cheka is your equal (particularly when he is putting you up against the wall for daring to strike against your equals in the Communist Party who are exercising their dictatorship over you). And, of course, when Lenin and Trotsky talked about the inevitable need for party dictatorship (and implemented it), they just didn't mean it, honest.

Day Two: the Odyssey continues

I was originally going to go to the meeting "Has the internet replaced other ways of organising?" simply for a laugh (after all, who actually argues that?). Instead I decided to go to the Irish SWP's Kieran Allen's "This is what democracy looks like" and I am *so* glad I did. I managed to turn this meeting into a *de facto* anarchism versus Leninism one, much to the obvious annoyance of the speaker and associated party hacks.

Planning ahead, I knew exactly what my contribution to this debate was going to be. I was going to compare the rhetoric of Leninism versus its reality. The speaker said that recall was a fundamental fact of Marxist politics. I countered with the classic quote by Trotsky that the "revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution." Where is recall and democracy there?

I stressed that anarchists base their politics on self-managed working class organisations (Kropotkin pointed to the directly democratic "sections" of the Great French revolution, Bakunin to self- managed unions), that we had supported recallable, mandated delegates and workers' councils since the 1860s and that *real* democracy means anarchism.

Then my account of how the Bolsheviks had acted as non-democratically as the capitalist system the speaker had attacked definitely pissed off a few people. I talked about the destruction of democracy in the army by Trotsky's decree, of workers' self- management by Lenin's appointed one-man managers with dictatorial powers, and the disbanding of soviets with elected non-Bolshevik majorities. This clearly made them squirm. And, of course, the following contributors failed to acknowledge my comment that this had happened *before* the start of the civil war - it was ignored by them all! They just don't listen, do they?

After a few contributions, the chair announced that time was running out and that we had time for two more people. I asked whether I had the right to reply - sorry, no, came the reply. Luckily for me, the next contributor said he just wanted to ask a question and wanted to hear my comments. He let me have his time. His question was simply that he had never heard my facts before and he was under the impression that the Russian Revolution was democratic - significant in itself.

So, armed with three minutes the comrades did not want me to have, I reminded them that the Bolshevik attacks started before the 22 capitalist armies had invaded (22, or 12, or 14, the number varied all weekend). I discussed Spain and quoted Trotsky's recommendation that "because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship for themselves they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship" (needless to say, I stressed the "for themselves" bit). I indicated the grim reality facing the CNT in Catalonia on July 20th, 1936 (either implement libertarian communism and fight the fascists *and* the republic *and* international capitalism or collaborate against Franco), stressing it was a mistake but an understandable one. I also raised the example of Aragon as anarchism in action (which, of course, was ignored).

The last contributor agreed with Trotsky on the dictatorship of the CNT leaders - because they "represented the workers." How easy it is for a Bolshevik to advocate party dictatorship! So much for "workers power." In response to my comment that at least the CNT did not impose a party dictatorship, Franco's dictatorship was raised. Yes, Franco was so much worse than Stalin! It also seems strange to raise the question of Franco's dictatorship as this was *precisely* the reason why the CNT collaborated in the first place - but never mind logic!

Instead of summing up on "What democracy looks like", we were subjected to a diatribe on anarchism - or, more correctly, what the speaker *thought* anarchism was. He asserted that we opposed organisation (wrong comrade), class power and struggle (wrong again, comrade) and that we had no idea that we needed to defend a revolution (again, wrong comrade). Indeed, all his inventions were refuted in black and white on the leaflet I was handing out! Our Irish comrade argued that we cannot dismiss Bolshevism by pointing to historical events or by quoting Lenin (although he did urge us to read "State and Revolution" - as my leaflet said, "while the Leninists ask you to judge them by their manifesto, anarchists say judge them by their record!"). Perhaps the Irish anarchists of the Workers Solidarity Movement (http://www.struggle.ws/wsm.html) could talk to Mr. Allen and actually let him know what anarchism really stands for? He is obviously in need for some education...

The Irish comrade claimed that anarchists just randomly selected quotes and events and used them to attack Leninism. Of course, in three minutes you can hardly present a fully referenced and comprehensive account of the failures of the Russian Revolution, but that time limitation was hardly *my* fault! What I had to do was select events and quotes which summarised the problems with Bolshevism and that is what I did. Concentrating on the events prior to the Civil War was necessary as it showed that the authoritarian actions of the Bolsheviks were not driven exclusively by the White forces. Similarly, the lessons Lenin and Trotsky drew from their experiences were so diametrically opposed to their pre-October rhetoric that it is essential to raise it. If, as the speaker argued, Leninism had a fundamental basis in workers democracy, how could Lenin and Trotsky argue for party dictatorship and how did this relate to their claims in 1917?

You also get an idea of the priorities of the SWP by the speaker's comments on anarchism. He claimed that if he were critiquing anarchism he would not quote the sexist views of Proudhon (I will ignore the fact that the SWP has and does do precisely this). Rather, he said, he would present a full socio-historic analysis of anarchism and not base his case on Proudhon's sexism. Interesting that he equates Proudhon's sexism with Lenin's and Trotsky's advocating of party dictatorship! It appears that arguing for (and implementing) a party dictatorship is equal in the scale of things as being sexist. I won't insult the intelligence of the reader by explaining why this shows that the SWP has a decidedly screwed up idea of what is important. Not that I am denying the importance of fighting sexism, I stress, but one person's sexism is dwarfed by an ideological commitment to party dictatorship. I'm mentioning this so that the SWP cannot claim I'm "soft" on sexism or I am sexist. Sexism is an evil that we must fight and abolish (and Proudhon was full of shit on this issue).

Presenting a socio-historic analysis of Leninism, including an account of the Russian Revolution, in three minutes would have been somewhat difficult. I tried my best, but obviously I had to be somewhat selective. For example, I had mentioned that Trotsky had tried to ban the soviet congresses that the Makhnovists tried to hold - it seems strange that the "soviet power" was banning soviet democracy, to say the least. And if the Makhnovists could organise congresses, then why could the Bolsheviks not do so? Clearly because they did not want to (as Trotsky's banning order showed). Is this cherry-picking events and quotes? Hardly, it is an example of the autocratic tendencies of Bolshevism in practice and it clearly shows that "objective circumstances" cannot totally explain their actions.

In summary, it seems strange that one anarchist, armed with the facts, could have such an impact. The meeting almost became a *real* debate (real debate at Marxism 2001 shock!). And that was only due to the generous action of a fellow worker!

I started handing out leaflets at the end of the meeting -- simply so I could counter the inaccurate nonsense spouting from the obviously flustered speaker. I was politely informed that I could not sell papers. So I asked if I could hand out leaflets. Sorry, no. My attempts to explain that the speaker was lying about anarchism and so the leaflet was essential fell on deaf ears. The SWP team member explained that this rule applied even to Socialist Worker paper sellers (as if that was a great concession as the speakers would hardly be misrepresenting those politics!). Outside the room, people were selling Bookmarks books, so I joined them - only to be informed to stop and that the no selling rule did not apply to them. True equality in action!

Over all, an interesting experience. I discovered that you can not quote Lenin or Trotsky, or mention their actions, unless you have nice things to say about them. If you stress "objective circumstances" then any action becomes justifiable (unless, of course, you are the CNT-FAI). Not much hope, then, for the future as every revolution will face difficult objective circumstances... So Bolshevism *would* have been fine if it wasn't for those meddling capitalists...

The next meeting I attended was the one on "Anarchism and the Spanish revolution." Actually, it wasn't *too* bad (I know, SWP standards are dropping!). Needless to say, there were mistakes and distortions but far fewer than I expected (indeed, they had lots of nice things to say about the CNT and even suggested it had an organisational structure and spirit which had a lot to teach us! Needless to say, the crux of the critique was the old "the CNT opposed the state, that is why they collaborated" line. Equally predictable, they trotted out the appropriate Garcia Oliver quote to provide evidence (without indicating it was from one year later, when the CNT had changed considerably).

There was *so* much to reply to of course. I could have pointed out that Trotsky had abolished democracy in the Red Army, making Trotskyist support for the CNT militias deeply ironic. I would have mentioned that Lenin had undermined the workers self-management the speaker had praised the Spanish anarchists for introducing (again, somewhat ironic). I could have indicated that the "workers' state" in Russia was not, in fact, run nor controlled by the workers and that Lenin had argued for party dictatorship. I could have corrected some the charges of sectarianism levelled against the CNT (no mention that the UGT "Workers' Alliances" were designed for socialist control, for example). I could have said that the reason why union halls were closed in Catalonia was due to state repression, but all that would have been essentially trivia.

So I went for the key error of his account - the difference between Catalonia and Aragon. His great error was to maintain, like so many Trotskyists that the CNT had "made their revolution" in Catalonia by seizing the means of production and ignoring the state (an error due to Felix Morrow's inaccurate assertions in Revolution and Counter- Revolution in Spain -- see http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append32.html for details). That, of course, was simply false - as I went on to explain.

I started by arguing that anarchists agree with Bakunin that the revolution meant that the state had to be destroyed (and that the CNT had not done this). I summarised the anarchist revolution by quoting Bakunin: "the federative Alliance of all working men's associations... will constitute the Commune." The "Revolutionary Communal Council" will be composed of delegates "vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates." These communes will send delegates "vested with similar mandates to constitute the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces... to organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction... the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence... will bring about the triumph of the revolution."

Then I argued that the CNT refused to do this - and I explained why by quoting from the 1937 report to the AIT (the CNT had a "difficult alternative: to completely destroy the state, to declare war against the Rebels, the government, foreign capitalists . . . or collaborating"). That was the reality facing the CNT - not the speakers a- historic pondering of Garcia Oliver quotes!

I then contrasted Catalonia to Aragon - same organisation, same politics, different results. How could the CNT politics be blamed for the mess in Catalonia when it had applied them in Aragon? That position could not be logically argued (and, unsurprisingly, my argument was essentially ignored). I stressed the continuity of what happened in Aragon and the Friends of Durruti's politics with the 1936 Zaragoza Resolution on Libertarian Communism. Again, this was ignored.

So how could anarchism have "failed" when it was ignored in Catalonia (for fear of fascism) and applied in Aragon? Quite a bombshell - and not remotely addressed by the speakers that came next (how could it be?). It also gave the SWP a problem - how could they downplay objective circumstances in Spain when that is their only defence of Leninism in Russia? Indeed, the speaker admitted that the membership of the CNT generally was in favour of anti-fascist unity (Franco was, of course, considered the main threat). Admitting that meant that their case against anarchism fell apart -- how could they turn round and say the threat of fascism played no role in the CNT's decision (as originally implied). And how could they say it was anarchist politics when those very same politics had formed the Council of Aragon?

So instead of addressing the points I raised, we were subjected to the same old nonsense about needing "centralised state power" and the blindingly obvious fact that Aragon was crushed because it was isolated (as the CNT in Catalonia had feared would happen to them if they had went the whole hog). The old myth that anarchists just want to seize the means of production and ignore the state was raised again (obviously, for the SWP, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true). Never mind that it was never an anarchist or CNT position and that the seizing of the factories came about *after* the CNT leadership had decided to put off introducing libertarian communism until after Franco was defeated. The SWP confuse this event with the programme of the CNT while, in fact, it was only *part* of it (and done independently, even *against*, the wishes of the leadership). The other part was destruction of the state by a federation of workers councils and free communes (as happened in Aragon).

When I asked for the chance to reply, it was denied to me (time considerations, of course). Simply put, the SWP wanted to control the debate and ensure that those with opposing perspectives are not given a real chance to respond to the comments by their members - needless to say, if I could reply to a few of their straw men arguments would have been set alight and we cannot have that...

Ironically, after stressing that the SWP supported the "anarcho-syndicalist" wing of the CNT against the "insurrectionist" wing, the speaker ended by quoting those famous words of that insurrectionist anarcho-syndicalist Durruti. Yes, anarchists do have a new world in our hearts and it is growing every minute -- that's why the SWP distort our ideas at their meetings.

Concluding thoughts

Was it worth going to? This is easy to answer - yes, it was. This is for two reasons, one personal, one political.

The personal one wasn't calling Pat Stack a lair (although that *was* fun). It was simply that going drove home how fundamentally undemocratic the SWP actually is. No real debate was possible due to the set-up of the meetings. Having three minutes to reply to a 45 minute diatribe is a joke. If they wanted a *real* debate about anarchism, for example, they would have had 15 minutes for a party member and 15 minutes for an anarchist, followed by 30 minutes of discussion and 5 minutes each to sum up. That was not done, for obvious reasons - it is easier to control the debate by the methods used.

Politically, it was good to go as anarchist ideas did get to people who normally may not have heard them. If an anarchist gets up and calls the speaker a liar, perhaps that will get the listener thinking. Combined with leaflets explaining *why* they are a lair, then that has a potential impact far greater than just three minutes of summarising a lengthier case.

The most frequently used straw man argument was that anarchists do not see that the working class is politically divided ("uneven development") and so we are utopian. Of course, anarchists are aware of this fact (just as we are aware of other facts like the sun rises in the East). We are aware of the need for political organisation and anarchist propaganda, to take part in and influence the class struggle, the need to win people to our ideas (if we did not, then why were there anarchists at Marxism 2001 in the first place?).

So why *this* particular straw man? Simply because it contains the rationale for party power/dictatorship (as argued by Lenin and Trotsky). The working class is politically divided, the vanguard contains all the "best" elements and so they should take power. Indeed, one comrade informed us that the revolution will see the workers' state repressing the "backward" elements of the working class (it is refreshing to see that admitted, although its hard to combine with Lenin's claim that the transition to communism meant "the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority"). Needless to say, we have the political position that justifies party dictatorship as any worker who disagrees with the vanguard is, by definition, "backward."

Yes, political differences exist and the revolution will see the working class split - but there is a clear difference in acknowledging uneven political development while supporting workers' self- management and acknowledging it and using it to justify party power (and ultimately dictatorship). Easier to just distort the anarchist position than actually address the issues it raises.

Which shows the importance of leafleting these things. It is a lot harder for the Leninists to slander anarchism when you are handing out leaflets that explicitly deny their assertions. This "uneven political development" was raised so many times that it is clearly the next big SWP argument against anarchism - comrades beware!

Other straw men were the usual ones. Listen, Leninist, anarchists favour organisation, class struggle, workers direct action, solidarity, self- organisation and collective management of society. Deal with these facts and move on. Repeatedly denying them will convince only party hacks who no longer can think. Similarly, anarchists argue that the revolution needs to organise to co-ordinate struggle and defence of the revolution. We've been arguing that since Bakunin. Please change the record and debate whether our ideas are applicable rather than deny our basic position!

The other trend for the future I identified was the SWP line on the "anti-capitalist" movement. They raised numerous times that the Black Block was "undemocratic" and that a "democratic" leadership was essential. They are *really* pushing this "democratic" leadership line against anarchism (and have done so since at least May Day last year). They clearly think this is the best way to gain influence (and ultimately control), particularly in the "liberal" wing of that movement.

Basically, the Black Block was "undemocratic" because it did its own thing (which is good coming from a party that did its own thing in Prague! -- see www.infoshop.org/faq/append34.html#app13). What to make of this? Hypocrisy of course, but we must stress that the Bolshevik "solution" to this means placing power at the top of the movement, in the hands of leaders, which is far more undemocratic than Black Block anarchists (who have been communicating and co-ordinating with other protestors more and more). Ironically, some of the SWP argued that the best thing about the anti- globalisation movement is that its open! Yes, it respects the kind of diversity the SWP want to abolish! We need to discuss this issue - and the WSM have just printed an article discussing this in issue no. 65 of their paper Workers' Solidarity (http://www.struggle.ws/ws/2001.html). Maybe that could be the basis of the discussion, because the SWP will be pushing this line more and more as time goes on - they obviously thinks its the why to colonise the anti-globalisation movement.

Talking of which, I was talking to a recent recruit to the SWP who was seriously pissed off with them (he said they were far too arrogant, which is true). However, he attended a national internal meeting and Chris Bambery (I think it was) said that the SWP's aim was to shape the anti- globalisation movement into a mirror of their organisational structure (hence the leadership arguments, I would think). This guy was quite rightly disgusted with this (he thought that the movement should shape itself). No big surprise there, but its nice to have our guesses convinced. I gave him leaflets and a copy of Black Flag. Hopefully he, and others, will find out more about anarchism.

Another issue seems to be related to the Socialist Alliance. One contributor compared the anarchist "don't vote" campaigns in the last election with the SA (and, no, he didn't admit that we were more successful!). He claimed that the SA got lots of contacts from their activities and implied that the anarchists did not (not really sure how he knew that, but never mind). However, I think that this will be one of the lines of engagement the SWP will use in the future.

As such, when we are discussing the futility of electioneering we should always best our arguments on clear class struggle analysis - electioneering corrupts the parties involved, generates reformism and bureaucratic tendencies within the party and hinders the creation of self-managed working class organisations. It is not just an ethical position - it is backed up a clear class analysis and an understanding of history. The fate of the German Social Democracy and Green Party should be stressed. Ironically, the quote from the FAI paper on why you should abstain got a rousing cheer at the Spanish Revolution meeting, suggesting that the SA approach has its critics in the SWP (and elsewhere). Simply put, if we can present a clear, coherent, class struggle based argument for anti- parliamentarianism, one based upon historical understanding and examples, with a clear alternative (i.e. direct action, solidarity, self- management) then anarchist ideas can be seen to be relevant, practical and the best way forward.

Another strange contradiction was the SWP's attempts to both build and burn bridges to anarchists. On the one hand, they stressed in contributions how anarchism and Marxism had a lot in common. One SWP member even said "we are all individuals" (although I managed to resist shouting out "I'm not" in true Monty Python style). On the other, they inflict Pat Stack's speech on us where he argued that they most definitely did *not* have anything in common. I got the impression they wanted us all to be one big happy family in the anti-gobalisation movement (with them as Big Brother?). Which, of course, explains their distorted diatribes against anarchism in their publications! I'm sure they think we are being sectarian when we reply to those attacks (and so expose them for the nonsense they are) and when we produce leaflets exposing the less attractive side of Bolshevism. As Kropotkin once put it, "basically the words 'Let us not discuss these theoretical questions' come down to this: -- Do not discuss *our* theory, but help us put it into effect." Hence their calls for "unity" and for being "non- sectarian" -- it is useful for *them* to be "apolitical" in this case as they have a lot to hide. As such we have to always discuss our/their ideas, our/their history and our differences, in order to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

They, as usual, patronisingly differentiated between the "best of the anarchists" who joined or worked with the Bolsheviks and the rest (who ended up having a group hug with their equals the Cheka). However, I prefer to remember the actual events of 1917 and 1918. The Russian anarchists worked with the Bolsheviks during the summer of 1917 and helped them during the October revolution ("unity against the common enemy, comrades!"). Once in power, the Bolsheviks attacked the anarchists in April 1918 (months before the start of the Civil War). Of course, they did not arrest "real" anarchists and this attack had no effect on the state of the movement. The same system of pacts and betrayals was inflicted on the Makhnovists by the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine. Yes, we are against the same thing, but we obviously not *for* the same thing. The anti-globalisation movement should remember this and start to be explicitly positive - unless we clarify what we want, the likes of the SWP will use the lack of clear *pro* ideas to try and take it over.

Its also good to be in a position of handing out leaflets which explicitly refute common Trotskyist straw men. It makes them look bad. The most common ones seem to be:
1) Anarchists are against organisation
2) Anarchists are against class struggle
3) Anarchists think the ruling class will disappear (i.e. defence of the revolution)
4) Anarchists don't recognise differences in political development in the working class
5) Spain (Catalonia, don't mention Aragon!) showed that anarchism does not work
6) Anarchists quote Lenin and Trotsky out of context (!)

I'm sure there are more (feel free to add any I missed out!). so bear those in mind, and prepare to answer them - as I admit I did in my leaflet (to blow my own trumpet for once). Basically, after a while you know exactly what they are doing to say (they are that repetitive and clone like).

What would I suggest for anarchists attending similar events in the future. Firstly, get organised before hand. Get leaflets produced (the WSM have good ones at their webpage in pdf format - - http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/pdf.html). We need more of these. They are an essential resource and should be encouraged! Also, plan what meetings to go to and what to say -- going to the right meeting with the right quotes can mean *you* determine the debate (as proved by the "what democracy looks like" meeting and the 19 Central Committee members quote). If one anarchist can have such an impact, think about the possibilities of a collective presence at the meetings (the Anarchist Federation -- http://www.afed.org.uk/ -- stall and leaflets outside were great and show the benefits of group activity, but inside it can have an equal impact). But no surprise there - solidarity is strength!

Also, I think it would be wise to organise your own meeting at the same time and leaflet the event. If the SWP do a meeting on anarchism on 2pm on Saturday, have a meeting nearby after it on the same subject - that way you have a positive alternative and show what a *real* debate looks like. I was thinking you could use one of their rooms (during the hour lunch break, although that may cause more hassle that it may be worth). That way you do not let them determine the agenda and show that there is an alternative -- namely a revolutionary working class anarchist movement (with its various national federations, local groups and publications).

It is clear that my and other anarchist's leaflets (and my contributions) had an impact (can I expect something in Socialist Review? Maybe, or maybe they may think its best to ignore the whole thing. Who can tell? If they do do something, they just draw more attention to the fact *one* anarchist had such an impact). That is good, but we need to build on it. The SWP say they want a debate, so lets give it to them. We have the politics and they will be exposed as the authoritarians they are - the worse thing we could do is just ignore them and hope they go away. They will not and the only way we can finally defeat them is when we provide a better alternative to them (and don't forget a lot of people join them because they don't see anything better).

Hopefully my (and the comrades from the Anarchist Federation) work will have paid off and got a few people thinking.

An Anarchist FAQ
---------------------------
www.anarchistfaq.org
www.anarchismfaq.org
www.anarchyfaq.org

This the the text of one of the leaflets handed out at Marxism 2001. A pdf version of it can be found at:

http://struggle.ws/pdf/alternative_lenin01.html

and the other leaflet (a reply to Pat Stack's diatribe on anarchism) can be found here:

www.struggle.ws/wsm/supplements/pdf_swp_anar00.html

Anarchist Alternative

A spectre is haunting the left -- the spectre of anarchism. All the powers of the old left have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: SWP and CP, New Labour and Fourth International, AWL and the Socialist Party.

Two things result from this fact:

I. Anarchism is already acknowledged by all the Left to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Anarchists should explain their views, their aims, their tactics and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of anarchism with an explanation of the real differences between Anarchism and Leninism. This leaflet can be but an introduction to this task.

Socialism from Below?

The SWP claim that they stand for "socialism from below." It argues that it "believes that the power to win real change comes from below. . .We offer a vision of a society based on workers' control, a society with real democracy. Socialism requires the mass activity of millions of people."

Anarchists agree with this vision. Indeed, we have used the symbolism of "from below" much longer than Marxists. Proudhon in 1848 said he was a "revolutionary from below" and that every "serious and lasting Revolution" was "made from below, by the people." Bakunin argued that "future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal."

If Bolshevism is "socialism from below" then why do anarchists reject it? Simply because its rhetoric hides an authoritarian reality. Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of revolution being "the free organisation of the working masses from below upwards" as "nonsense." Lenin argued in 1905 that "the principle, 'only from below' is an anarchist principle." He stressed that Marxism stood for "From above as well as from below" and that "renunciation of pressure also from above is anarchism." As the history of the Russian Revolution proved, this signifies the destruction of workers' power, democracy and freedom by party rule.

Socialism from Above

Pressure "from above" meant "pressure by the revolutionary government on the citizens." Once in power, Lenin argued that "revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves." The question of course arises -- who decides what a "wavering" or "unstable" element is? Simple, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- but what is meant by that term? Leninists point to Lenin's State and Revolution for details. In it he explains that it is "an immense expansion of democracy" and the suppression "by force" of the "exploiters and oppressors of the people."

Much that passes for 'Marxism' in State and Revolution is pure anarchism -- for example, the substitution of revolutionary militias for professional armed bodies and the substitution of self-managed working class organs for parliamentary bodies can be found in Bakunin's works. Both he and Proudhon had argued for mandated and recallable delegates years before it was applied in the Paris Commune and praised by Marx. What is authentically Marxist in Lenin's pamphlet is the demand for "strict centralism," its support for representative rather than delegate democracy and the identification of the soviets with a state.

Moreover, nowhere in that work is there any mention of the use of coercion against the working class. He does state that the dictatorship of the proletariat was "the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class." This "vanguard" is the party: "By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat which is capable of assuming power." So the vanguard of the oppressed would become the "ruling class", not the oppressed. This is the key contradiction for Bolshevism -- it confuses workers' power with party power.

Bolsheviks and Proletarians

According to Lenin and Trotsky there is no difference between party power and workers' power. As Lenin put it in Left-Wing Communism, "the very presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of the Party or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or dictatorship (Party) of the masses?' -- is evidence of the most incredible and hopeless confusion of mind." He stressed that "to go so far in this matter as to draw a contrast in general between the dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders, is ridiculously absurd and stupid."

This, by necessity, excludes democracy. In the same year, he argued that the transition from capitalism to communism could not come about via mass, democratic organisation:

"the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts... that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot direct exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard ... for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation."

This conclusion was not applicable just for the terrible conditions in revolutionary Russia but was rather of a general nature. He re-iterated this "lesson" in 1921: "after two and a half years of Communist rule we stood before the entire world and said at the Communist International that the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible in any other way but through the dictatorship of the Communist Party."

Trotsky drew the same conclusion and repeated it the rest of his life. As he argued in 1937: "The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is... an objective necessity imposed upon us by the social realities -- the class struggle, the heterogeneity of the revolutionary class, the necessity for a selected vanguard in order to assure the victory... The revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution... Abstractly speaking, it would be very well if the party dictatorship could be replaced by the 'dictatorship' of the whole toiling people without any party, but this presupposes such a high level of political development among the masses that it can never be achieved under capitalist conditions."

Nowhere did they bother to explain how this was compatible with Lenin's claims of 1917 that "all officials, without exception," would be "elected and subject to recall, at any time."

Lenin's and Trotsky's argument that party dictatorship was required due to political differences ("uneven development") within the class had a long history in Bolshevism and existed well before the Russian Civil War. During the 1905 Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks had argued that "only a strong party along class lines can guide the proletarian political movement and preserve the integrity of its program, rather than a political mixture of this kind, an indeterminate and vacillating political organisation such as the workers council represents and cannot help but represent." In other words, the soviets could not reflect workers' interests because they were elected by the workers!

Thus "revolutionary" party reproduces the usual division of labour that exists in any class society -- a few think and give the orders while the many obey. As Victor Serge, anarchist turned Bolshevik, put it in 1919, the party "is in a sense the nervous system of the class" and its "consciousness." And the working class? Well, it is "carrying out all the menial tasks required by the revolution" while "sympathising instinctively with the party."

Unsurprisingly, there is no evidence indicating that Lenin or any of the mainstream Bolshevik leaders lamented the loss of workers' control or of democracy in the soviets, or at least referred to these losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared with the replacement of War Communism by NEP in 1921.

Bolshevism in power

Leninists point to the Russian Revolution as evidence for the democratic nature of their politics. Anarchists point to it as evidence of Leninism's authoritarian nature. Both can do this because there is a substantial difference between Bolshevism before it took power and afterwards. While the Leninists ask you to judge them by their manifesto, anarchists say judge them by their record! So what was this record like?

Soviet Democracy

Post-October, effective power in local soviets relentlessly gravitated to executive committees and plenary sessions became increasingly symbolic and ineffectual. Executive bodies usually controlled soviet congresses, though the party often disbanded congresses that opposed major aspects of current policy. Local soviets had little input into forming national policy. The highest soviet organ, the Central Executive Committee, was overshadowed by the Council of People's Commissars. In the first year, only 68 of 480 decrees were actually submitted to it, and even fewer drafted by it.

The spring of 1918 saw the success of Menshevik-SR opposition in soviet elections in all provincial capitals in European Russia. The Bolshevik then disbanded the Menshevik-SR controlled soviets and repressed the subsequent wave of working class protests and revolts. These election victories threatened Bolshevik power. That is why in the course of the spring and summer of 1918, the soviet assemblies were disbanded. To stay in power, the Bolsheviks had to destroy the soviets. These steps generated a far-reaching transformation in the soviet system, which remained 'soviet' in name only.

Workers' Control

Before the October Revolution, Lenin saw "workers' control" purely in terms of "universal, all-embracing workers' control over the capitalists." He did not see it in terms of workers' management of production itself (i.e. the abolition of wage labour) via federations of factory committees. Anarchists and the workers' factory committees did. On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, the factory committees sought to bring their model into being. At each point the party leadership overruled them. The Bolshevik alternative was to vest both managerial and control powers in organs of the state which were subordinate to the central authorities, and formed by them. Workers' management from below was not an option. Lenin himself quickly supported "one-man management" invested with "dictatorial powers" after "control over the capitalists" failed in early 1918. By 1920, Trotsky was advocating the "militarisation of labour" and implemented his ideas on the railway workers.

Democracy in the Armed Forces

The soldiers' committees and elected officers were abolished in March 1918 by Trotsky: "The principle of election is politically purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice, abolished by decree" Officers were appointed from above by the government. Ironically, Trotskyists like Felix Morrow argued in Spain that "the simple, concrete slogan of elected soldiers' committees was the only road for securing proletarian control of the army." Clearly, Trotsky abolished proletarian control of the Red Army in favour of bureaucratic control.

Objective factors?

The experience of Bolshevism in power showed that a system based on "from below and from above" places real power "above," not "below." Rather than the working class seizing power in October 1917, it was the Bolshevik leaders who did so. As Lenin put it in May 1918, "power has been seized, retained and consolidated in the hands of a single party, the party of the proletariat." If the party has power, then the workers do not.

It is argued by Leninists that "objective" factors accounted for this degeneration of the Bolshevik state, not their ideology. The Civil War is usually held as the main factor. Sadly for this argument the evidence is against it. The degeneration of the revolution started before the outbreak of the Civil War in late May, 1918. The Civil War may have made things worse, but the destruction of workers' power and democracy had already started.

Aware of this, the SWP try to blur the issue. John Rees, for example, argues that "most historians treat the revolution and civil war as separate processes. In reality they were one." In other words, the Bolsheviks faced the problems of Civil War from the start and, therefore, cannot be blamed for their actions.

It seems strange that Leninists blame Civil War for the failure of the revolution. This is because Lenin explicitly argued that "revolution is the sharpest, most furious, desperate class war and civil war. Not a single great revolution in history has escaped civil war."

Other "objective factors" are economic collapse and isolation. However, as Lenin argued, "those who believe that socialism will be built at a time of peace and tranquillity are profoundly mistaken: it will everywhere be built at a time of disruption, at a time of famine." Isolation and economic collapse always accompany a revolution and Russia was no exception.

Apparently, for the SWP, Bolshevism would have worked if only the capitalist class had given up and gone away! If Bolshevism cannot withstand the inevitable results of revolution, then it should be avoided at all costs.

Lastly, the common claim that the civil war decimated the working class is hard to argue when it is acknowledged that around 50% of the working class still existed in Russia. It is doubly hard to argue when this "atomised" working class was quite capable of going on strike all through the Civil War period and immediately afterward. In early 1921, for example, a spontaneous strike wave occurred in the industrial centres of Russia with 77% of medium and large enterprises taking part. In Petrograd there was a general strike. The Bolsheviks had to turn the city into an armed camp and use both troops and the secret police to break the strike and stop attempts by the strikers to organise themselves (the Kronstadt revolt occurred in solidarity with this strike). It took extensive repression to break the strike, a situation hard to understand if the working class was as atomised as Leninists like to claim. Simply put, the strikes had to be repressed and the Kronstadt revolt suppressed as the rebelling workers would not have voted for the Bolsheviks.

Objective factors cannot and do not explain the failure of Bolshevism. Its politics played a key role. To argue otherwise is to subscribe to the contradictory position that Bolshevik ideology was essential for the success of the revolution and yet played no role in its eventual outcome.

Rhetoric versus Reality

"the Russian Soviet Republic. . . is the most highly centralized government that exists. It is also the most democratic government in history. For all the organs of government are in constant touch with the working masses, and constantly sensitive to their will." Zinoviev to the IWW (1920)

"soviet rule in Russia could not have been maintained for three years -- not even three weeks -- without the iron dictatorship of the Communist Party. Any class conscious worker must understand that the dictatorship of the working class can by achieved only by the dictatorship of its vanguard, i.e., by the Communist Party . . . All questions . . ., on which the fate of the proletarian revolution depends absolutely, are decided . . . in the framework of the party organisations." Zinoviev in Kommunistische Rundschau (1920)

Will the real Leninist please stand up?

"The whole experience of the workers' movement internationally teaches that only by regular elections, combined with the right of recall by shop-floor meetings can rank-and-file delegates be made really responsible to those who elect them." Chris Harman, Bureaucracy and Revolution in Eastern Europe.

"They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy." Trotsky, 10th Party Congress, 1921.

"The essential points of a revolutionary program [are] all power to the working class, and democratic organs of the workers, peasants and combatants, as the expression of the workers' power." Felix Morrow, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain.

"The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods and objectives. It is just for this reason that a centralised organisation of the vanguard is indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation of the masses themselves." Trotsky, The Moralists and Sycophants, 1939

"The [Stalinist] bureaucracy is characterised, like the private capitalist class in the West, by its control over the means of production." Chris Harman, Bureaucracy and Revolution in Eastern Europe

"Obedience, and unquestioning obedience at that, during work to the one-man decisions of Soviet directors, of the dictators elected or appointed by Soviet institutions, vested with dictatorial powers." Lenin, Six Theses on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, April/May 1918.

"people who seriously believe that workers at the height of revolution need a police guard to stop them handing their factories over to capitalists certainly have no real faith in the possibilities of a socialist future." Chris Harman, Bureaucracy and Revolution in Eastern Europe

"the workers [on strike in Petrograd] wanted the special squads of armed Bolsheviks, who carried out a purely police function, withdrawn from the factories." Paul Avrich, Kronstadt 1921 Spain, 1936

Marxists point to the Spanish Revolution as evidence that anarchism is flawed. However, they fail to consider the objective conditions faced by the Spanish Anarchists (CNT-FAI) and instead blame anarchist theory.

On July 19th, Franco's military coup was defeated in Barcelona by a mass uprising led by the CNT-FAI. On July 20th, the Catalan president offered them power but they refused and instead collaborated with other anti- fascists. The bourgeois parties and state used this collaboration to regain their strength, undermining and then destroying the spontaneous social revolution that broken out. Ultimately, Franco won, due, in part, to this betrayal.

The question is why did the CNT-FAI do this? Simply because the situation in the rest of Spain was unknown. To implement libertarian communism, it was argued, would have meant fighting both the fascists and the Republic. Such a war would only aid Franco (as it did when the Republican state attacked the revolution). While this was a terrible mistake, it was an understandable one. The CNT-FAI ignored one key aspect of anarchism, namely the destruction of the state. Instead of introducing anarchism, it was decided not to talk about it until after Franco was defeated. Clearly the events in Catalonia indicate a failure of anarchists to apply their politics rather than the failure of those politics. Given this, it seems hard to blame anarchist theory for what happened but that is what Leninists do.

A sizeable minority always opposed the decision. Many in the CNT, FAI and Libertarian Youth and the Friends of Durruti group argued for a return to the principles of anarchism and the pre-war policy of the CNT -- destruction of the state and the creation of a federation of workers' councils to conduct and defend the revolution ("the state cannot be retained in the face of the unions" Friends of Durruti). They represented the revolutionary heart of anarchism.

In Aragon things were different. There the CNT-FAI remained true to anarchism and formed the Council of Aragon from a meeting of collectives and militia columns. Leninists usually fail to mention this application of libertarian principles. To do so would be to invalidate their basic thesis against anarchism and so it usually goes unmentioned, hoping this confirmation of anarchist politics in practice will go unnoticed.

A real alternative
For anarchists, the failure of Bolshevism came as no surprise.

We have, from the beginning, argued that Marx made a grave mistake confusing workers' power with the state. This is because the state is the means by which the management of people's affairs is taken from them and placed into the hands of a few. It signifies delegated power. As such, the so-called "workers' state" is a contradiction in terms. Instead of signifying the power of the working class to manage society it, in fact, signifies the opposite, namely the handing over of that power to a few party leaders at the top of a centralised structure.

Leninists pay lip-service to working class self-activity and self-organisation as well as workers' councils (soviets), factory committees, workers' control, revocable and mandated delegates. They do so in order to ensure the election of their party into positions of power (i.e. into government). Faced with a conflict between workers' power and party power they will crush the former to ensure the latter -- as the Russian Revolution showed repeatedly.

They justify this in terms of the "uneven" political development within the working class. In contrast, anarchists argue that precisely because of political differences we need the fullest possible democracy and freedom to discuss issues and reach agreements. Only by discussion and self-activity can the political perspectives of those in struggle develop and change. In other words, the fact Bolshevism uses to justify its support for party power is the strongest argument against it.

For anarchists, the idea of a revolutionary government is a contradiction. As Italian anarchist Malatesta put it, "if you consider these worthy electors as unable to look after their own interests themselves, how is it that they will know how to choose for themselves the shepherds who must guide them? And how will they be able to solve this problem of social alchemy, of producing a genius from the votes of a mass of fools? "

As such, anarchists think that power should be in the hands of the masses themselves. Only freedom or the struggle for freedom can be the school of freedom. That means that, to quote Bakunin, "since it is the people which must make the revolution everywhere... the ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested in the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial organisations... organised from the bottom up through revolutionary delegation. "

The soviets and factory committees of the Russian Revolution are examples of this kind of revolution (little wonder fellow Marxists argued Lenin sounded like Bakunin in 1917). This, incidentally, disproves Lenin's assertions that anarchists "have absolutely no clear idea of what the proletariat will put in [the states] place." We always have -- federations of workers' organisations created by the process of class struggle and revolution.

Class Struggle

Some claim that anarchism rejects collective class struggle and organisation. Far from it. Revolutionary anarchism has always seen working class organisation and struggle as the means of changing society. To quote Bakunin, "the workers' world... is left with but a single path, that of emancipation through practical action... It means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses. It means trade-unions, organisation... the International relies on the collective experience [the worker] gains in its bosom, especially on the progress of the collective struggle of the workers against the bosses."

For Malatesta, the "struggle for immediate gains" was essential as "workers learn that the bosses interests are opposed to theirs and that they cannot improve their conditions, and much less emancipate themselves, except by uniting and becoming stronger than the bosses."

The Anarchist Revolution

The anarchist revolution is marked by two key things: the abolition of capitalism and the state. As Bakunin put it, "no revolution could succeed... today unless it was simultaneously a political and a social revolution" The claims that anarchists just seek to destroy the state or seize industry while ignoring the state are simply false.

Concretely, the revolution, to quote Bakunin, must "destroy the State" and ensure the "confiscation of all productive capital and means of production on behalf of workers' associations, who are to put them to collective use... the federative Alliance of all working men's associations... will constitute the Commune." The "Revolutionary Communal Council" will be composed of delegates "vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates." These communes will send delegates "vested with similar mandates to constitute the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces... to organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction... the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence... will bring about the triumph of the revolution."

In other words, a federation of workers' councils which expropriate capital, placing it under workers' self- management, while destroying the capitalist state and organising the defence of the revolution.

What really needs to be Done?

Such a revolution needs "the development and organisation" of the "social power of the working classes" (Bakunin). Kropotkin argued that anarchists "have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce those unions to direct struggle against capital." The "chief aim of anarchism" is to "awaken" the "constructive powers of the labouring masses."

We must organise where we have real power -- in our workplaces and communities -- using direct action and solidarity. We need to create not only the ideas but also the facts of a free society and use them to fight the current system! Anarchists argue that only by applying our ideas in the class struggle can we create the possibility of socialism. This is the basis of anarchism, the authentic "socialism from below."

Real socialism can only be worked from below, by the people of every village, town, and city. The problems facing the world cannot be solved by a few people at the top issuing decrees. They can only be solved by the active participation of the mass of working class people, the kind of participation centralism and government by their nature exclude.

Little wonder the Left is scared. More and more people are finding out about a real alternative to capitalism which does not involve just changing who is the boss. That alternative is anarchism.

www.infoshop.org
www.anarchistfaq.org
www.ainfos.ca