A Critique of Anarchism? – Not Really!

Usually the International Marxist Tendency produces high quality articles, but “Marxist and Anarchist Theory” (1) is not one of them. The author, Daniel Morley wants to critique anarchism, and to put it mildly, does not succeed. To criticize something you have to understand it and refrain from fallacious arguments. Morley cannot restrain himself from engaging in straw man tactics and confusing some anarchists with anarchism in general.

Anarchism, like Trotskyism, has many tendencies. Do we make a valid criticism of Trotskyism by implying that it is identical to the craziness of the Posadist flying saucer folk or the sectarianism of the Start-a-cyst League? Not at all, but this is the tactic our would-be critic uses.

It seems that anarchism paradoxically rejects theory. Yes, there are some people waving the black flag who seem to think that only action matters, but they are a minority, criticized by the majority of anarchists. The fact – please note my choice of words – that material conditions determine consciousness is trotted out as thought it were something previously unknown. But very few anarchists would disagree.

Yes, some anarchists do believe that the State came first, and that classes are an epiphenomenon. But once again, most of us do not share that view, seeing state and class arising simultaneously. All anarchists take a materialist stance in this instance. As but one example of an alternative to the Marxist position, the state as a result of conquest, this is about as materialist an act as you can get. No anarchist I know of regards the origin in an idealistic way, ie, seeing the state arising from an idea or some supposed will to dominate.

The vast majority of anarchists and not most, see the need to defend a revolution from reaction. The vast majority of these same anarchists see the need for an armed militia to accomplish this defence. The author does not fully comprehend the notion of coercion, when accusing revolutionary anarchists of being two-faced about the need for this armed defence. Is the woman who fights off her would-be rapist engaging in coercion? Hardly. Coercion involves an individual or group forcefully imposing their will on others, not defending yourself against those who would do this to you.

We are condemned as hypocrites since in revolutionary situations we have suppressed reaction, and thus supposedly instituted a state. But anarchists and orthodox Marxists have different views as to what constitutes a state. Marxists have an ontological (essentialist) analysis of the state. The state is essentially one class suppressing another. The anarchist analysis is a phenomenological (descriptive) analysis, i.e., the really existing state consists of an armed group separate from the workers, officials separate from the people, a bureaucracy etc. Thus, for anarchists, when power is not separate from the working population – through the use of worker assemblies, delegates and worker militias – the state no longer exists, or a most, exists in a vestigial or potential form.

No anarchist thinks that all representatives at all times will abuse their power. What we do believe is that with representation it is easy to abuse power. The anarchist way of overcoming the abuse of power is to replace representatives with recallable delegates. It is taking economic determinism to absurd lengths to claim that a form of governance has no important influence on what happens after a revolution. In contradistinction to the author's vulgar Marxism, anarchists see both class and organizational form as important factors in whether a revolution succeeds or degenerates.

No anarchist makes a fetish of right-wing trade union leaders, though we do criticize them. (And who doesn't?) This fetish is a left-social democratic or Communist Party attribute, not ours. The whole point of class struggle anarchism is to encourage rank and file activism, not ignore it, as the author claims.

Few anarchists, and certainly no class struggle anarchists, reject collectivism. Indeed, Bakunin's economy was called collectivist anarchism. What all anarchists do reject is top-down centralization. This was what Kropotkin was attacking, not the idea of a collective social and economic order. (He was an anarchist communist!) Few anarchists, and certainly no class struggle anarchists, are opposed to unity and co-ordination, but this is best done through delegation and a level of local control that makes functional sense, not top-down centralization.

Saying that Kropotkin favoured a simple economy is totally false. As a scientist, he was well aware of the technological advances of his era and how these could be applied in a future communist society. He showed that with the advent of AC current, the electric and petrol motor and intensive horticulture, most (but not all – be careful!) production could be done on a smaller, local scale without a loss in efficiency and productivity. Rather than a simple economy where people work long hours, he envisaged a complex, technologically advanced society that freed people from much of the burden of labour. (3)

The author gives an example from Russia of a worker-run factory where workers treated the work place and the machinery as their own private property. This is far removed from anarchism. Even Proudhon envisaged the abolition of private property and a kind of wheels within wheels system of industrial and agricultural federations.

The claim is made that Nestor Makhno opposed the working class, favoring peasants only, even going so far as to say they didn't need railways. This is untrue, and the supposed evidence for this is taken from Russian Civil War propaganda, hardly an objective source. (2) Furthermore, anarchists have never been peasant chauvinists, and have always sought to unite the two exploited classes in economic and political struggle.

It is correct that anarchists have tended to muddy the waters when criticizing leadership. But certainly for class struggle anarchists, leadership per se is not the problem, but bossism or coercive leadership. We are against the sort of leadership that manipulates and bullies the class and not the sort of leadership that leads by example, leads through honest discussion and debate, leads through the promotion of ideas and practice. Indeed, these are the aspects of true leadership.

It is also correct that the syndicalist union and the general strike proved incapable of completing the revolutionary process. Workers on a number of occasions, have brought themselves to the brink of revolution through their syndicalist movement, but have not succeeded in toppling the state and replacing it with popular power. What is needed is a political revolutionary force to encourage the workers to make that final step. Today, many syndicalists are aware of this need and we see the growth of Platformist and Especifist tendencies in working class anarchism. These tendencies do see the need for leadership and a revolutionary political movement.

A couple of final thoughts. Why was this written? Certainly not as a means to convince anarchists of the falsity of our views. If you want to convert us, shoddy polemics are not the way. I suspect it was written to bolster the troops, to keep the members from getting too cuddly with the anarchos. And by the way, it's not like we have all the answers or are right all the time. But if you want to critique us, do so with intelligence and refrain from fallacies. And if you want to know what our real problems are, feel free to write and I will tell you all about them.

1. http://www.marxist.com/marxist-and-anarchist-theory.htm

   For an example of their usual quality of analysis click here

2. When the Makhnovists took over Alexandrovsk they form[ed] a Commission of Initiative composed of delegates of several active trade unions... Several members of the railwaymen's and shoemakers union declared they were ready to organize this Commission... The Commission went eagerly to work. Soon the railway workers got the trains running again, several factories opened their doors, several trade unions re-established, etc. (This was normal procedure for the Makhnovist Army) Volin, “The Unknown Revolution”, page 633.

3. The idea that the bulk of production must be large scale and centralized is a relic of the Age of Steam. Those who followed in Kropotkin's footsteps such as Ralph Borsodi, Murray Bookchin and Kevin Carson have advanced his concepts even further.

Riane Eisler and Anarchism

Riane Eisler is not an anarchist, but she is part of an increasingly numerous group of thinkers and activists who do not fit within the old paradigms. Such people as Naomi Klein, Sub Com Marcos, and the 21 st Century Socialists, who cannot be easily pigeon-holed as social democrats, Marxists or anarchists, yet seem to share all of those traits.

She does not fit in the old paradigms, in large measure, because she has invented a new paradigm, that of “dominator society vs partnership society.” The usual anarchist concepts include statism/anti-statism, and authoritarian/anti-authoritarian. I would suggest that her new conception is more encompassing than the older concepts. But not for a moment do I believe that these should be scrapped, but merely used where they apply most directly.

One does not have to think for very long to find areas of life where the concepts of statism and authoritarianism give rise to problems in analyzing certain ideologies and situations. For example, anyone can see that neo-liberals, Stalinists and Fascists are both statist and authoritarian. So too, any group or individual who seeks to further dis-empower the populace, centralize economic and political power and create greater inequality in income. The old concepts fit like a glove.

The problem comes when you encounter people who strive for greater equality, empowerment of the populace, more decentralized and direct democracy, yet at the same claim that such a system has the need for some sort of a state. Calling such people “statist” or “authoritarian” seems like the “one drop concept” of race and politics. (1) When a democratic socialist who desires worker and neighborhood council democracy and workplace self-management gets stuck on the same list as Hitler and Mussolini, you have to wonder about your theory. When it comes to complex, contradictory situations, applying the old paradigms is like trying to crack a nut with a nine pound sledge hammer.

But this isn't the only problem. Many societies that lack a state can be extremely oppressive – especially to women and children. Nor does a weaker state necessarily lead to greater freedom and equality. The state is much smaller in Chile than in Sweden, yet no one in their right mind could claim Chileans are freer and more equal than the Swedes.

These two sets of problems are overcome by using the dominator/partnership concept. A dominator society is one in which there is a high rate of inequality of wealth and power and these inequalities are rationalized through ideology and religion. There will be gender and sexual oppression. War and conquest is celebrated. A partnership society is one in which there is a low rate of inequality of wealth and power and gender and sexual oppression. Ideology and religion will reflect this. There will be no glorification of conquest

It is possible for the state and coercive authority to exist in both systems, but with partnership societies these will be muted. Domination and partnership exist on a continuum and there are no complete dominator or partnership systems. All societies are a mix of both and one or the other tendency may be more general.

Now we have a way of judging societies not with abstractions, but how they actually effect the people who inhabit them.

The paradoxical situation where one party states like Cuba or Tito's Yugoslavia are better for their citizens than many a multiparty “democracy” are also clarified. While authoritarian in many ways, these societies nonetheless have or had many partnership aspects, greater indeed than societies, which on paper at least, were less authoritarian. Nor do we need write off these positive social aspects as so much propaganda (as though the citizens of these countries were too stupid to see if they were conned or not.) That such regimes might have some real benefit for their people exists as a possibility with the dominator-partnership model.

Nor do we anarchists, when confronted by right-wing “libertarians” have to apologize or feel sheepish about preferring social democracy to US-style “liberty.” The US, for all its alleged dislike of government and endless talk of freedom, is compared with say, Norway, far more on the dominator end of the scale. Consider the US and its inability to develop a health care system or other social measures, its militarism and belligerence, its extremist religions.

1. In the Jim Crow Southern USA, having “one drop” of African blood, whether you looked “white” or not, meant you were Black and thus discriminated against. The contemporary political version of this is that any amount of social reform is too much “socialism.”

Any Time Now - online anarchist zine

My apologies to Dick for taking so long to mention the new format ANY TIME NOW ZINE. Check it out, Lots of good information See

http://atnzine.net/

The Phases of Anarchist History

In order to understand the degeneration of the Socialist (Second) International, Karl Korsch in 1920 applied an historical materialist analysis to Marxism. He related Marxist praxis to the level and nature of class struggle. He posited three periods of Marxist activity. The first period ended about 1850, involved the revolutions of 1848 and the Chartist Movement. This revolutionary period gave rise to the “original” and revolutionary Marxism of Marx and Engels. The second period lasted until the 1917 Russian Revolution, and was characterized by the defeat of the Paris Commune and a partial absorption of the working class into simple trade unionism. Marxism, in its turn, became reformist during this period. The Third Period began with the Russian Revolution and revolutionary Marxism was restored with revolutionary thinkers like Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg.

This is not the place to debate the merits of Korsch's three stages, but only to consider applying historical materialist analysis to the anarchist movement in an attempt to understand its ideological Odyssey. Can the anarchist movement be placed in periods related to the level of class struggle in those countries where it had some prominence?

Like Marxism, anarchism developed just prior to and during the Revolution of 1848. This early anarchism was based mainly on the writings of Pierre Proudhon. But unlike Marxism, “Proudhonism” was not a fully developed revolutionary anarchism. In many aspects it was gradualist and reduced class struggle to the formation of worker mutualist societies. (Proudhon was opposed to strikes) Most workers at this time were artisans and mutualism was natural to them. Anarchism's First Period would be roughly 1840 until the late 1860's. During this time, Proudhon influenced the nascent workers movement in France, Southern Europe and part of Latin America.

By the late 1860's, however, a growing class struggle in those countries where Proudhon's thought had influence, began to move anarchism in a more militant direction. (1) Bakunin is the chief anarchist theoretician of this period which lasts until the defeat of the Paris Commune and the crushing of the Spanish and Italian revolts. Thus anarchism's Second Period lasts from about 1868 to 1874.

Post-1874 sees a period of reaction, as well as the “Long Depression” which effects many of the advanced economies up until the mid-1890's. Class struggle wanes, or is severally repressed in the countries where anarchism has any presence. But rather than heading in a reformist direction, an important section of the movement goes the opposite way, into ultra leftism. Two crucial aspects of revolutionary anarchism are ignored, seemingly pushed aside as irrelevant, these are the need to be directly involved in the people's struggles and the need for organization, rejected for “propaganda of the deed” and small autonomous action groups. This Third Period lasts until the late 1890's.

Propaganda of the deed proves an abject failure. Anarchists are marginalized and the social democratic parties get the upper hand, except for Southern Europe and Latin America. At the same time, the 1880's and 90's see a process of industrialization occurring, almost world-wide. Former peasants and artisans are converted into wage workers and the class struggle heats up. Anarchists return to the working class and involve themselves in the formation of revolutionary labour unions, (syndicalism). We can date anarchism's Fourth Period from the late 1890's. Syndicalism develops into a mass movement comprising millions of workers. Anarcho-syndicalists are involved in the Mexican and Russian revolutions, as well as risings in other countries such as Argentina and Brazil.

But Fourth Period anarchism had a flaw. While involved in the people's struggles and the creation of mass organizations, most syndicalists fell into a kind of economic determinism and also underestimated the need for a distinct revolutionary organization. For most Third Period syndicalists, revolution meant the workers occupying and running the work places and the need to deal politically with the state was ignored. The defeat of the Spanish Revolution in 1938 brings the Third Period to a close. At the same time, with few exceptions, workers become integrated into communist, social democratic or even worse, business unions and the parties supported by these tendencies. Autonomous class struggle, which found its theoretical and practical expression in syndicalism, for all intents and purposes, ends at this time, With the defeat of syndicalism, anarchism once more becomes separated from the working class. Essentially, the end of autonomous struggle is the end of anarchism as a proletarian movement.

The Fifth Period begins in 1939 and goes until 1968. This time, unlike the propaganda of the deed period, anarchists do two things – they immerse themselves in theory and attempt to develop a reformist anarchism, a “practical” anarchism that can be applied in a time when mass working class revolt, let alone revolution seems a hopeless fantasy. A major concern is why the working class failed to bring about the libertarian socialist revolution. Sexuality, child rearing practices, pedagogy, and culture are all examined and it is shown how these have an effect upon the workers consciousness and practice. A Gramcian struggle for hegemony ensues as anarchists strive to bring liberatory practice into daily life and overcome those factors which create a subservient population. (The one area where anarchism does have some input into the working class is the promotion of workers control and these ideas begin to resurface in the mid-1960s.) The Post 1939 “movement” allows anarchism to survive. Its ideas have an influence far beyond the small numbers of adherents. Liberatory practices begin to permeate society and the most obvious example of this is the formation of early New Left and the counter-cultures of the 1960s.

1968 signals that anarchism has entered a new phase, the Sixth Period. Autonomous class struggle is back again. Non-syndicalist unions start talking about workers control. Syndicalist unions begin recruiting again, though they remain very much a minority tendency within anarchism. Anarchism at this time is overwhelmingly counter-cultural, except for countries where it has deep roots like France, Italy and Spain. Permanent anarchist organization begins in countries that had not seen such in 40 years. The far-left is largely Marxist Leninist during this period, but anarchism is now a contender, something it wasn't in the Fourth Period.

The Seventh Period begins in 1980 and sees the complete defeat/capitulation of the orthodox left everywhere. The working class, at first combative, is beaten down and defeated. Anarchism suffers as well. While not eliminated, numbers are down and some organizations fragment. But the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, and the re-establishment of “democracy” in Latin America leads to a proliferation of anarchist groups. Anarchists are now found almost everywhere, but the movement is “a mile wide and an inch deep” and is still largely counter-cultural. (Counter-culture seems to be the way that anarchism enters new areas and attracts youth.)

The Eighth (and present) Period is signaled by the Battle of Seattle in 1999 and the Argentine Revolt of 2000. Seattle makes vast numbers of people aware of anarchism. The rebirth of class struggle in France, Spain and Mexico 1994-5 gave rise to the invigorated syndicalism of the French CNT, the Spanish CGT and the libertarian communalism of the Zapatistas, and laid the base for this period. The far left is now basically “the anarchists,” . More than a decade into the Sixth Period, the growing, if not dominant tendency in anarchism is working class oriented, and organizational. Furthermore, the influence of anarchist ideas goes far beyond the actual number of anarchists. Today, it is a rare socialist who is not in favor of worker-management, worker coops and popular power exercised through neighborhood councils. Even if, as some cynical anarchists claim, these socialists are not sincere, it still shows the influence of these ideas that they have to raise them in the first place.

Looking at anarchism in relation to the actual level of class struggle and how this struggle is reflected in anarchist praxis enables us to have a deeper understanding and appreciation of our movement. Western society has an underlying notion of free will and thus we have a culture of finger-pointing and blame. (You freely chose to do this, you vile creature!) Unconsciously, the left shares this culture. People who deviate from what is considered correct in terms of theory and practice are deemed to have done so for negative motives. While “selling-out”, ignorance and stupidity are factors, they don't explain everything. By examining anarchist praxis in the manner above, we realize that most of what happens, including those aspects we disagree with, are the natural responses to a given set of conditions rather than malfeasance and stupidity. The worst we can say about our past errors is that they were short-sighted.

Realizing the almost cyclic nature of the movement and the different periods that it can be divided into, can help us overcome any future errors made as a short-sighted reaction to changed conditions. For example, no period of reaction is so all-encompassing that we have to resort to propaganda of the deed to keep anarchism alive. While anarchism lost its proletarian base in the 1950's, this did not mean this was permanent and that militant, class struggle anarchism was gone forever.

At the same time, aside from the disastrous propaganda of the deed, much has been gained from anarchism's various phases, in spite of the errors committed. An incredible amount was learned from the Fourth or syndicalist phase. Indeed, this period really put anarchism on the map as a serious tendency in the workers movement. The Fifth Period developed anarchist understanding of society to a remarkable degree, making much of the earlier anarchism seem crude by comparison. Without the counter-culturalism of the Sixth and Seventh Periods, it is unlikely that so many youth would have become attracted to anarchism.

1. Many of these Proudhonist associations began to take on a more militant stance.

Interview on Anarchism

Our good friend from Argenta, Dick Martin, is part of an interview on anarchism in an article in the Victoria University's paper THE MARTLET See

http://martlet.ca/martlet/article/anarchy-society/

Radio Interview on "View From Anarchist Mountain"

I was interviewed on Radio CHLY last Wednesday. Topics being my two last books, "View From Anarchist Mountain" and "The Impossibilists." . Click on link to hear the program - http://www.archive.org/details/UnboughtAndUnbossed196Nov102010

The View From Anarchist Mountain

It has been a busy year for me, publishing wise. First The Impossibilists, with my own Red Lion Press, then Nature of Human Brainwork was brought out by PM Press. Now I have two more to offer.

The View From Anarchist Mountain, 199 pages, $16.00 is a collection of my writings over the past 20 years on anarchism, society and history. It is available from AK Press. (For Canadians, order from me at redlionpress@hotmail.com )

Bill Pritchard – Revolutionary Socialist is a 36 page pamphlet that goes for $4.00. Pritchard is best known for being jailed under a bogus conspiracy charge in the aftermath of the Winnipeg General Strike. He was also a militant of the Socialist Party of Canada, the editor of its newspaper, The Western Clarion, and a founder of the OBU. After the demise of the SPC, he was an early member of the CCF and was Reeve of Burnaby for a number of years. Later in life, he returned to the “Impossibilist” socialism of his roots.

“Bill Pritchard – Revolutionary Socialist” - was taken from a talk he gave in 1973. It describes his adventures - and often hilarious misadventures – as a pioneer Socialist on speaking tours of Western Canada more than 90 years ago. He reminisces about a host of fascinating characters and also gives crucial eye-witness evidence about the murder of Ginger Goodwin. It is available so far, only from me.

The Big Anarchist Survey

Calling all anarchos! Do the Big Anarchist Survey. Takes about 15 minutes only and the results will be announced when done. Thank you Miroslav, for sending this. See

http://www.anarchistsurvey.com/

Call For Support From Chilean Comrades

Dear comrades,

The situation in this region called Chile is already known, thus we believe more details about the recent earthquake are not necessary, as the Internet offers a lot of information about what took place.

The group of individuals that make up the Productora de Comunicación Social* escaped physical damage, even though during the earthquake a couple of comrades from our organization were in Concepción, one of the most devastated regions - leaving the site where they were pretty much uninhabitable and losing some equipment used for the work of the organization.

In Santiago, our main workplace and where meetings were held, also home to a couple of our comrades - the Casa Volnitza - was partially destroyed. Currently, we are looking into repairing the site, since neither the Productora nor the Sociedad de Resistencia Santiago**, with whom we share the space, have another place to go to. Fortunately, we had no other substantial material losses, but the structural collapse that occurred in the Casa Volnitza was indeed major.

We have had constant contact with some organizations in southern Chile. The comrades that were near the epicenter were able to communicate directly with us about the help they need. There are social center and sister organizations in poblaciones, or working class neighborhoods, that were heavily damaged by the earthquake and also by actions taken by the police, the army, mass media and the government.

Given the circumstances, we are asking for help from our comrades from different parts of the world. Here in Santiago, businesses are up and running, so one can even buy food and basic items that are not reaching us via the government. We have already sent some help to the southern region with what we have here in Santiago, even though we too have been affected.

In our space, the Sociedad de Resistancia Santiago is helping to collect items to send to the most affected area where there are still no basic services, or wherever organizations are requesting help.

As the Productora we would like to request monetary support from all organizations that know our work and trust us. These contributions will be used to recover lost material and equipment, possible restorations or an alternative space and to send aid to the Southern organizations. Obviously no institutional channels work to help the direct work of anti-authoritarian organizations, so we reach out to you.

All persons or organizations interested in providing some sort of collaboration, contact us as quickly as possible at our e-mail: productoradecomunicacionsocial@gmail.com

See you soon.

Reconstructing the social movement,

Health, bread and freedom!

Productora de Comunicación Social.

Videorevista – Sin(a)psis***"

comunicando acción en la construcción del movimiento social"

Valparaíso - Santiago - Valdivia - Temuco - Antofagasta - Concepción – and beyond

Translator Note:

*The Productora de Comunicación Social, or Social Communication Production, are the production collectives that publish the Chilean video-magazine Sin(a)psis***, an independent publication in DVD format covering the praxis of anarchist organizing in that region and beyond. More info at: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=196759735730&index=1#!/pages/Chile/SINAPSIS-la-video-revista/161436684301

**The Sociedad de Resistencia Santiago groups the working, the unemployed and students into anti-authoritarian initiatives to generate collective solutions for immediate needs, be they economic, social and/or cultural without leaving behind the purpose of collective liberation. More info at: http://sociedadresistencia.blogspot.com/

You can also donate to other autonomous, anarchist and radical community based organizations by emailing or clicking on the links below.

Fondo Alquimia

for the Comunidad Lésbica La Teta Insurgente (lesbian anarcho-feminists in Concepción)http://www.fondoalquimia.org/Earthquake-in-Chile-Women-....html

http://www.darcontarjeta.cl/interior_institucion.asp?ll...atego...

Solo el Pueblo Ayuda al Pueblo- Campana de Solidaridad Popular

Only the People can help the People- Popular Solidarity Campaign

(a coalition of various organizations and individuals, including anti-authoritarians)http://soloelpuebloayudaaelpueblo.blogspot.com/

soloelpuebloayudaaelpueblo@yahoo.cl

For news and updates in Spanish check out:

http://santiago.indymedia.org/

http://chilesur.indymedia.org/

Colin Ward 1924 – 2010

Robert Anton Wilson, Murray Bookchin have left us, now Colin Ward has gone too. Colin was one of the great popularizers of anarchism in the English speaking work. His review, "Anarchy", which he published from 1961 to 1970, brought anarchist thinking out of its ghetto, applying anarchist ideas in a whole range of areas like education, urbanism, culture. And in doing so many people became acquainted with anarchism, who otherwise would not have.

He sought the "anarchism of daily life", showing how in so many instances we act freely and with mutual aid, being anarchists without even knowing it. Colin also showed us "the path not taken" by social democracy when it instituted state-run social services. According to him, the existing self-managed systems of mutual aid should have been extended rather than replaced by state bureaucratic institutions.

The following is an article taken from A-Infos about Colin Ward

Ward was the most practical radical I've ever read: Rather than sketching out utopian blueprints of a society without a state, he searched for empirical examples of everyday people organizing to solve their own problems. Once he started looking, he found that voluntary, non-authoritarian cooperation was everywhere. Utopia, he wrote in his 1973 book Anarchy in Action, is "already here, apart from a few little, local difficulties like exploitation, war, dictatorship and starvation." ---- Because he took his ideals seriously, Ward butted heads regularly with both the conventional left and the conventional right. In the '80s and early '90s, his column for New Statesman & Society was peppered with examples of the Tory government failing to live up to its rhetoric of liberty and decentralized power. At the same time, he was harshly critical of the social democratic left. In one of his most famous passages, he pointed out that

When we compare the Victorian antecedents of our public institutions with the organs of working-class mutual aid in the same period the very names speak volumes. On the one side the Workhouse, the Poor Law Infirmary, the National Society for the Education of the Poor in Accordance with the Principles of the Established Church; and, on the other, the Friendly Society, the Sick Club, the Cooperative Society, the Trade Union. One represents the tradition of fraternal and autonomous association springing up from below, the other that of authoritarian institutions directed from above.

As Stuart White notes in his tribute to Ward, the writer was

a formidable and dedicated opponent of what is often understood as the Fabian tradition. This comes across very clearly in his work on housing where he was always highly critical of state-heavy efforts, led by middle-class housing professionals, to provide housing for the working-classes. In this context, he argued for the alternative left tradition of cooperative self-help in the form of tenant cooperatives, self-build projects and squatting. He pointed repeatedly to the illogicality of local governments - often Labour-controlled - who would rather destroy unused council housing stock than allow it to be occupied by squatters.

These squatters, to be clear, were not self-righteous trustafarians seizing a private home while the owner took a holiday. They were ordinary families finding uses for resources the state had left fallow. Such self-organization was a longtime theme in Ward's work. Quoting White again: "Much to the consternation of the [postwar] Labour government, many thousands of working-class people responded to acute housing shortage by taking over and adapting disused military bases. While his comrades in the anarchist movement struggled to see the point, Colin saw this as an example of what he would later call 'anarchy in action': direct and cooperative self-help." Ward's interest in the institutions that people build from below took him to areas that radical writers rarely touched: He wrote appreciative histories and sociologies of holiday camps, allotment gardens, amateur music-making, even the street culture of urban children.

Ward had an eye for the creativity of ordinary people and the ways we use that inventive energy to transform our environments. He didn't have trouble imagining a society immersed in liberty and spontaneous order, because he knew that liberty and spontaneous order were what sustained society in the first place, even if they sometimes had to take a stunted form.

The Anti-Olympics Demonstration and the Black Bloc.

I have never cared much for the Black Bloc, but the amount of hypocrisy about the "violence" of breaking a couple of bank windows this Saturday in the demonstration against the Olympics corporate welfare fest has almost made me sympathetic.

Tactical differences and criticism are legitimate. There are ethical and utilitarian aspects to any tactical choice and the BB's can be questioned about these. However, the bulk of hostility wafting their way has little to do with arguments about tactics. Many of the red-faced and bellowing crowd (1) simply hate "protesters" period and use the BB as an excuse to spout venom at any public critic of the system.

Those who rant about violence would be comical in the extremity of their hypocrisy if it wasn't just plain sad that people could be so blind and so deluded. A newspaper box was thrown through a bank window – you would think it the atrocity of the decade. Thirty million children die each year from malnutrition and bad water. If a few broken windows makes these folks apoplectic, how do they deal with this violence? How about the trillion dollars a year squandered on military foolishness while those same kids drop dead? Shouldn't that peeve these clowns enough to heat up the comments sections of the on-line forums?

So far I have seen accusations of cowardice against the BB's and at the same time calls for vigilante action against them (and also generic "protesters.") 20 unarmed, unprotected people take on hundreds of armed, body armoured riot cops. They may be nuts but cowards they ain't! The accusation of cowardice is actually psychological projection on the part of the right-wingers. What is a right-winger but someone filled with a host of irrational fears – of protesters, trade unions, feminists, environmentalists, peace activists, socialists, communists etc., all raised into towering bogey-men causing the poor little right-winger to practically piss himself in terror? A fair fight to a right-winger is a thousand to one – the lynch mob so let's drop all talk of cowardice.

I have actually heard it all before. Back in the 1960's we student radicals were attacked in similar terms. "Public opinion" turned apoplectic when the Yippies arrived on the scene and went off the Hate Mongers Richter Scale when a bunch of street kids destroyed a train load of brand new automobiles during the Blaine Invasion. (And you morons get your shorts in a knot over a couple of windows?)

The BB made me think of other violence that I witnessed during that time. I was in Berkeley in May of 1970 when Nixon invaded Cambodia. The students held a night demo and molotov cocktails were hurled at the ROTC building setting it on fire. Around the same time students in Santa Barbara burned the local Bank of America to the ground.

Now let's move away from the right-wing moonbat element and turn to one aspect of the tactical criticism of the BB. The notion that their actions will "turn people against the movement." No one other than right-wing fanatics reduces the movements of the 1960-70s to the most extreme or violent aspect of those movements. People are actually a lot smarter than that. Debate on the BB will have to move to other areas other than this, but that would have to be another time...

1. I got this image from living in Quebec. This is how most Quebecois see Anglo Canadians.

New Article - Principled Bakuninism.

I have a new article published on the Anarkismo site called "Principled Bakuninsm". It is based upon a recently published document written by a Mexican anarchist group and concerns the question of organization and leadership. See

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15401

Vancouver Anarchist On-Line archive

I was just sent this new anarchist archive of material relating to Vancouver history. See

http://vanarchive.wordpress.com/

Chilean Anarchists on the Honduras Coup

Statement by the OLC (Organization of Libertarian Communists of Chile) trans. by machine, then cleaned up by LG.

Our organization's position on the military coup in Honduras: ----

1..- Once again the bourgeoisie allied with the armed forces engaged in a coup against a constitutionally elected president in the institutional framework of their own class. It is strange in the eyes of the world an action of this magnitude, even more so when those same national bourgeoisie gabbled about with "Never Again" and other polished phrases after white washing their sponsored dictatorships and waves of coups that ravaged the continent during the second half of the twentieth century.

2. Our organization rejects the oligarchs arguments on the illegitimacy of the "Popular Consultation" convened by a non-binding vote as a motive for the Gorilla Golpe against Manuel Zelay. This would ignore the long history of attacks on people's gains by the bourgeois parties, including the Liberal organization (the organization which was elected Zelaya), the ultimate expression was the law banning holding consultations 180 days before an election, an argument put forward by the bourgeoisie, their parties and their FFAA to make the referendum illegitimate, accusing Zelaya of unconstitutional practice and thus to execute the coup.

3 .- We note clearly that the CIA and the Government of the United States have learned from the failed coup in Venezuela against President Chavez. This time the White House openly rejected the coup in Honduras, which is consistent with the urgent laundering U.S. image in the region in light of its loss of influence and the need to gain ground lost in a continent boiling with popular revolt, while still supporting the old doctrine of national security, graduating senior officers in Latin America's infamous School of the Americas, where the same putschist Honduran officials, graduated with honors including chief of staff Romeo Vasquez Velasquez and Head of Air Force Luis Javier Suazo Prince.

4 .- Our organization openly recognized the government of Manuel Zelaya, as expression of decades of popular aspirations, which in terms of foreign policy is mirrored in alignment with the governments that support the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas ( ALBA), which have been formed in the last 15 years in our continent. We firmly believe that this attitude of the government of Zelaya, placed next to the working people, poor, indigenous and marginalized from Honduras and the governments of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, has been the trigger for the establishment of the dictatorship in Honduras.

5 .- Located on the State of Chile there must be action against against the coup beyond mere declarations of good will. In our view, the minimum action that should be undertaken at the height of the decent people of Honduras, is totally breaking diplomatic and trade relations with the civilian-military dictatorship.

6 .- The resistance that has developed with its indigenous people, community, civil society, tradeunions, in the streets of Honduras is a demonstration that Zelaya's government is backed by the people. In parliament, while the president has no allies, the people in the streets are demanding his return via the demand for a General Strike. We hold that the military coup will not drown all hope of the Honduran people, on the contrary, this event will allow an exponential leap in the development of their political and social organizations, with regard to the maturation of a collective society and the definition of a road beyond the scope of mere democratic reforms. The overthrow of the government of Zelaya, has allowed not only a demonstration of the lack of social support for the bourgeois imperialist project, but has allowed millions to open their eyes not only in Honduras but also in Latin America and the world showing the limits of the bourgeois democratic framework.

7 .- The Libertarian Communist Organization of Chile rejects gorilla coup in Honduras, and is aligned with the honorable people of Central America in the rejection of the puppet government of Roberto Micheletti. We know, and history gives us the reason that dictatorships are not exceptional events in the life of nations, but a recurring weapon of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Today the Honduran people claim in the street what they have chosen at the polls, but we know that tomorrow, the same people in the same streets will build popular power and their liberation.

¡Arriba los y las que luchan!!!

¡¡¡ Venceremos!!!

Original at

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13605

UPDATE

Good article (translated) by Jose Antonio Gutierrez at http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos22877.html

THE STATE AND REVOLUTION - An Anarchist Viewpoint.

My intention here is not to make points against Lenin, but rather to analyze "The State And Revolution" as objectively as possible, yet remain within the context of anarchism. This analysis written by Lenin some months before the October Revolution, has been called his most libertarian work. Writers such as Hal Draper, Raya Dunayevskya, C.L.R James, therefore claimed that Lenin was something of a libertarian socialist and Trotskyists have also used it to claim that he was in favour of workers' power.

The State and Revolution, more than any other document, spells out the Marxist concept of revolution and its immediate aftermath. It also brings into clear focus the differences and similarities between Marxism (a) and anarchism over the nature of revolutionary governance. (b) A major bone of contention between anarchists and Marxists is over the notion of the "workers' state." Anarchists typically see these concepts as a Marxist desire to erect a powerful centralized state and party dictatorship over the working class.

What is a state in Marxist terms? According to Lenin the state develops where class antagonisms cannot be reconciled. (1) For Engels the state is a power standing above society to alleviate the conflict. The state requires a territory, the armed forces not coinciding with the people. If the state stands over society liberation therefore ultimately requires its destruction. (2) The final goal of Marxists and Anarchists is thus the same – a stateless and classless society. It is in the details of the intervening period between the old system and the new where we find differences of opinion.

Why A Workers' State?

It order to defend the revolution, revolutionaries must suppress counter-revolution and this is accomplished by the armed working population. By the very act of suppressing another class, the workers, in Marxist terms, have a "state." The state, ie, the proletariat organized as the ruling class. (3) The form that the workers state takes, Marx says, is that of suppression of the standing army and its replacement by the armed people. (4) Lenin too, saw the workers state as nothing more than the exploiting class being suppressed by the armed populace. But this"state" really is not a state in the regular sense of the word – a bureaucracy, standing army separate from the people, but is a "state" that is already disappearing. ("withering away") This is what is Lenin called the abolition of the state as state and is the fullest form of democracy. (5) 463 As soon as the revolution is successful and the workers have broken the power of the rulers, that remaining essence of the state begins to dissolve itself. For Engels, ...there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection...[there is] nothing necessitating a special coercive force or state. (6)

But workers simply cannot take over the existing state and use it. They must smash it and replace it with something new. In order for the revolution to be successful, it must be a people's revolution, (7) (peasants and workers) and the smashing of the state is the pre-condition of this alliance. This new form of governance is the Commune. The Commune is the form discovered by the proletariat under which the emancipation of the proletariat takes place. (8) The basic structure of the workers state or commune would be to ...elect delegates, all revocable, control and supervision by all, at wages the average of the worker. (9) Lenin mentions favorably Engels remark about the need to replace the term [workers] state with "commune" as more accurate and less confusing. (10)

A Contradiction?

While lauding the Commune and its direct democracy, Lenin also said that in this workers state, state power involves a centralized organization of forces – the vanguard "directing and organizing the new system... (11) But this seems contradicted by his favorable attitude to Engels rather decentralist view that in the early French Republic of 1792-98 each commune enjoyed complete self-government on the American model. (12) Engels also favored the Australian and Canadian system of provincial and municipal governments, seeking a situation where there was complete self-government for provinces, districts and communes... abolition of all local and provincial authority appointed by the state. (13)

We will see later, that Lenin seems to confuse centralization with unity and this confusion is one root of contention between Marxists and anarchists.

Two Different Analytic Tools.

By positing the state in its ultimate sense as one class suppressing another, Marxists engaged in an ontological definition – the state is essentially class domination. Anarchists, on the other hand view the state not as a concept or abstraction, but as the "really existing state". Their analysis is empirical (descriptive) – the state has a bureaucracy, a governing body and army separate from the people etc. Thus, for anarchists, the Commune is NOT a state, and for the Marxists it is the last vestige of the state. Both are right according to the choice of analytic tools, and the ontological and the empirical are both valid ways of looking at the world. Nor should Marxism be reduced to the ontological and anarchism to the empirical in some general way. Both tendencies use both methodologies, though sometimes in different ways.

Marx and Lenin Attack The Anarchists

If the above was all there was to State and Revolution, the situation between anarchists and Marxists would be "you say tomaytoe, I say tomahto." However, Lenin, and Marx and Engels before him, systematically misrepresented the anarchist position on revolution, organization and governance. While it is true that anarchists have also misrepresented Marxists, sometimes grossly, I would suggest that Marxist misinformation has only served to reinforce the negative stereotype anarchists often have of them. (c.)

Lenin states, contra anarchism, We are not utopians, we do not dream of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination. These are anarchist dreams. (14) Accordingly, The anarchists dismissed the question of political forms altogether (15) and only have a vague notion of what they wish to replace the state with. (16) They just want to destroy the state, period. Anarchism is thus a tactic of dispair, rather than taking into account practical problems.(17)

Let's see what Lenin's anarchist predecessors and contemporaries had to say about administration, political forms and their destruction. (All emphasis below is mine.)

On the other hand the State has also been confused with Government. Since there can be no State without government, it has sometimes been said that what one must aim at is the absence of government and not the abolition of the State. However, it seems to me that State and government are two concepts of a different order. The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. The State, Its Historic Role, Peter Kropotkin

There is a need for a revolution... This conviction has led many to believe that the only important thing is the insurrection, and to overlook what has to be done to prevent an insurrection from remaining a sterile act of violence against which an act of reactionary violence would be the eventual reply. For those who believe this, all the practical questions of organization... are matters which will solve themselves... Yet the conclusion we come to is this: Social reorganization is something we must all think about right now... In order to abolish the police and all the harmful social institutions we must know what to put in their place... immediately, the very day we start demolishing. One only destroys, effectively and permanently, that which one replaces by something else; and to put off to a later date... would be to give time to the institutions one is intending to abolish to recover from the shock and reassert themselves, perhaps under other names, but certainly with the same structure. The Anarchist Revolution, Errico Malatesta

by the... federation of communes to replace the domineering, paternalistic state. Micheal Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, Sam Dolgoff, Vintage 1971, P. 262

Collective power... workmen's associations in place of armies. Proudhon in George Woodcock, The Anarchist Reader, Fontana, 1980, p.293

A new form of political organization has to be worked out. And it is evident that the new form will have to be more popular, more decentralized, and nearer to the folkmoot self-government than representative government can ever be.

Kropotkin in Paul Berman, Quotations From The Anarchists, Praeger, 1972, p. 68,

The nation is a free association of communes. Mandatories are at all time subject to recall. Carlo Piscane in Robert Graham, Anarchism, Black Rose, Montreal, 2005, p.66

Lenin claimed that the anarchists thought that the workers should "renounce the use of arms, organized violence, that is the state... [they] repudiated all authority, all subordination, all power." (18) Were anarchists that naive?

We must play an active part in the necessary physical struggle... in order to destroy all the repressive forces of the government and to induce the people to take possession of the land, homes, transport, factories, mines, and of all existing goods... We must... encourage action... in order to prevent the emergence of new authoritarian groups, new governments, combating them with violence if necessary... The Anarchist Revolution, Errico Malatesta

Revolution means war... Either the bourgeois world will subdue... the people... or the working masses will... destroy to its roots bourgeois exploitation... the uprooting of all that is represented by the State. Pps 372-373 It is necessary ... there be a real force in the field, one that knows what should be done...capable of taking hold of the Revolution and giving it direction salutery for the people... a serious international organization of workers' associations. p.375. Begin by striking down those who oppress you... and having destroyed the power of your enemies... disarmed and helpless... invite them to live and work along side you....p.377 The Political Philosophy of Bakunin G. P. Maximoff Free Press 1964,

The purpose of revolutionary organizations is to help people toward self-determination... the least interference from any sort of domination. Bakunin- The Philosophy of Freedom, Brian Morris, Black Rose 1993, p.148

It is necessary to make sure the [revolutionary] movement... is not simply a blind movement... on taking up the Winchester we go forth decided, not upon the enthronement of another boss, but the reclamation of rights of the people.

179 War against the wage system, Mexicans! ...make the lands and machinery of production for common use; and this can only be achieved through means of force... And if those who ...oppose this work of supreme social justice, kill them!

Dreams of Freedom, Ricardo Flores Magon,, eds Chaz Bufe, M.C. Veter, p.155

In each Syndicate [union] a group for defense was formed... they exercised themselves in the management of arms... not to be taken unawares [by] reactionary conspiracy... These Syndicalist battalions were not a force external to the people, they were the people themselves ...at the same time they seized the factories... they occupied... all the points where the reactionaries might have been able to concentrate... [they] were ruthlessly isolated... Emile Pouget, How We Shall Bring about The revolution, Pluto, London, 1990, p151

The structure of the CGT.. is neither centralist nor authoritarian...[it] is controlled from below...Confederal activities co-ordinated by the... delegates... In the regulation of collective affairs the Congress [of the CGT] is entirely sovereign. Pierre Monatte 1907 in George Woodcock The Anarchist Reader Fontana 1980. p. 214

Unless democracy is a fraud... each citizen in the sphere of his industry, each municipality, disctrict or provincial council, within its own territory, is the only natural and legitimate representative... The People is ... the organic union of wills... Such a union must be sought in the harmony of their interests, not in artificial centralization. Proudhon, Anarchism, Robt. Graham ed Black Rose 2005, p.57

Lenin claimed that Anarchists find no use in exploring past revolutions to find out what to replace state with. (18)

I would be unable to accept the view that all past revolutions though they were not anarchist revolutions were useless, nor that future ones which will still not be anarchist revolutions will be useless. The Anarchist Revolution, Errico Malatesta It should also be remembered that Kropotkin wrote an entire book on the French Revolution where he described the Parisian sections. Proudhon also wrote about it as well.

Marx disagreed with Bakunin and Proudhon on federalism and Lenin wrote it off as an aspect of the "petty bourgeois" nature of anarchism.. (19) For Lenin, Marx was a centralist and this was exemplified as The proletarians and poor peasants... organize themselves quite freely in communes, unite all the communes in... crushing the resistence of the capitalists, in transferring [industry] to the entire nation, won't that be centralism?

After reading the quotes from the anarchists above on organization and administration, there should be little doubt anarchists want to see the proletarians and poor peasants... organize themselves quite freely in communes, unite all the communes in... crushing the resistence of the capitalists, in transferring [industry] to the entire nation.. But this is seen not as "centralization" but "unity in action". For anarchists centralization means top-down control and no autonomy in the units that make up the centralized organization. We have already seen that Marx, Engels and Lenin all agree that control should be from the bottom up ...elect delegates, all revocable, control and supervision by all, and the communes should have the degree of autonomy necessary to carry out their functions, "complete self-government for provinces, districts and communes...

Lenin seems to confuse unity with centralization. Both he and Marx also seem confused about federalism. They deny the need for it, yet at the same time insist upon the complete self government of the communes. What is local autonomy combined with delegation, other than a form of federalism? It may be that Marx and Lenin thought federalism meant too loose a structure, communes or counties as virtual independent countries, and thus dis-unity and conflict. Perhaps like the thousands of petty German principalities during Marx's youth, or the "federalism" of business unionism where different trades scab on each other. But this was never the federal concept among social anarchists.

Finally there is the canard about "petty bourgeois anarchists". For sure there are such anarchists, just like there are "petty bourgeois" socialists. But these "individualist anarchists" are few in number compared with social anarchists. (d) This slander by Marxists has always seemed like psychological projection. Syndicalism is the most purely proletarian form of socialism, yet among the Marxist parties is where one finds lawyers, academics and the children of the middle class in charge.

Conclusion

Marxists who adhere to the principles of the Paris Commune and anarchists have much more in common than they think. Strip away the polemical exaggerations, strip away the fallacious arguments, and you have two groups who seek Popular Power for the working masses.

It seemed to 19^th Century revolutionaries that they could defeat other revolutionary tendencies through polemics, and these were often of dubious honesty. Criticism of genuine weaknesses and errors are to be desired, as they help develop our practice. False or polemically exaggerated statements do nothing but exacerbate division and animosity. Tendencies can be almost obliterated by violence – witness anarchism in the 1930's and 40's as it was stamped out by fascism and Stalinism. But when the ground is fertile they are reborn. A tendency will only be permanently reduced to insignificance when it is totally disconnected from the reality of the times and the needs of the people. Witness the Socialist Labor Party which has been dying since 1900 and experienced no significant growth during any of the periods of revolt of the last century. 150 years of polemics between Marxists and Anarchists, and guess what? Both of us are still here, in most cases more alive than in several generations.

More important than tendency or ideology is practice, or desired practice. If you believe in worker and neighborhood assembles with recallable delegates, self-management and multi-tendency direct democracy, these common principles should take precedence over the quarrels of 150 years ago.

FOOTNOTES

a. Except for " libertarian Marxism", which denies the need for any form of state.

b. I have chosen the word "governance" as a neutral term to describe the political organization of post-revolutionary society. Governance can be either statist or non-statist, in the anarchist usage of the term, state..

c. There have always been anarchists respectful of Marx, such as Albert Parsons, Daniel Guerin, Murray Bookchin and Kevin Carson. Furthermore, much anarchist animosity can be traced to Bakunin's understandable confusion between the German Social Democratic Party and the thinking of Marx and Engels.

d. Social anarchists are those with some level of class analysis, consider themselves socialists and favor, where needed, large scale organization. Social anarchists include mutualists, syndicalists and anarchist communists.

1. 387, 2. 387, 3. 402, 4. 418, 5. 397, 6. 395, 7. 416-17, 8. 432, 9. 481, 10. 440, 11. 404, 12. 447, 13. 448, 14. 425, 15. 431, 16. 484, 17. 488, 18. 436, 19. 427

All the above pages came from "The State and Revolution", in "Lenin's Collected Works" Vol. 25, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964