Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:36:43 -0400
From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-tao.ca>
Subject: Marxism and "Anarchism": A reply to the SWP: Part Two


Marxism and "Anarchism": A reply to the SWP

Part Two

The SWP continue their diatribe against anarchism ("Marxism and
Anarchism", Socialist Worker, 16th September 2000):

"Big workers' struggles throw up an alternative form of authority to the
capitalist state. Militant mass strikes throw up workers' councils.
These are democratic bodies, like strike committees. But they take on
organising 'state functions'-transport, food distribution, defence of
picket lines and workers' areas from the police and army, and so on."

To state the obvious, transportation and food distribution are not
"state functions." They are economic functions. Similarly, defence is
not a "state function" as such - after all, individuals can and do
defend themselves against aggression. Defence can be organised in a
libertarian fashion, based on self-managed workers' militias and
federations of free communes. It need not be a hierarchical system like
the Bolshevik Red Army where the election of officers, soldiers'
councils and self-governing assemblies were abolished by Trotsky in
favour of officers appointed from above. What is a "state function" is
imposing the will of a minority - the government, the boss, the
bureaucrat - onto the population via professional bodies such as the
police and military. This is what the Bolshevik state did, with workers'
councils turned into state bodies executing the decrees of the
government and using a specialised and hierarchical army and police
force to do so. The difference is important. Luigi Fabbri sums up it
well: 

"The mistake of authoritarian communists in this connection is the
belief that fighting and organising are impossible without submission to
a government; and thus they regard anarchists . . . as the foes of all
organisation and all co-ordinated struggle. We, on the other hand,
maintain that not only are revolutionary struggle and revolutionary
organisation possible outside and in spite of government interference
but that, indeed, that is the only effective way to struggle and
organise, for it has the active participation of all members of the
collective unit, instead of their passively entrusting themselves to the
authority of the supreme leaders.

"Any governing body is an impediment to the real organisation of the
broad masses, the majority. Where a government exists, then the only
really organised people are the minority who make up the government; and
. . . if the masses do organise, they do so against it, outside it, or
at the very least, independently of it. In ossifying into a government,
the revolution as such would fall apart, on account of its awarding that
government the monopoly of organisation and of the means of struggle."

Thus the difference between anarchists and Leninists is not whether the
organisations workers' create in struggle will be the framework of a
free society (or the basis of the Commune). Indeed, anarchists have been
arguing this for longer than Marxists have. The difference is whether
these organisations remain self-managed or whether they become part of a
centralised state. In the words of Camillo Berneri:

"The Marxists . . . foresee the natural disappearance of the State as a
consequence of the destruction of classes by the means of 'the
dictatorship of the proletariat,' that is to say State Socialism,
whereas the Anarchists desire the destruction of the classes by means of
a social revolution which eliminates, with the classes, the State. The
Marxists, moreover, do not propose the armed conquest of the Commune by
the whole proletariat, but the propose the conquest of the State by the
party which imagines that it represents the proletariat. The Anarchists
allow the use of direct power by the proletariat, but they understand by
the organ of this power to be formed by the entire corpus of systems of
communist administration-corporate organisations [i.e. industrial
unions], communal institutions, both regional and national-freely
constituted outside and in opposition to all political monopoly by
parties and endeavouring to a minimum administrational centralisation." 

So, anarchists agree, in "big workers' struggles" organisation is
essential and can form an alternative to the capitalist state. However,
such a framework only becomes an "authority" when power is transferred
from the base into the hands of an executive committee at the top.
Strike and community assemblies, by being organs of self-management, are
not an "authority" in the same sense that the state is or the boss is.
Rather, they are the means by which people can manage their own affairs
directly, to govern themselves and so do without the need for
hierarchical authority. The SWP, in other words, confuse two very
different things.

After misunderstanding basic concepts, the SWP treat us to a history
lesson:
"Such councils were a feature of the Russian revolutions of 1905 and
1917, the German Revolution after the First World War, the Spanish
Revolution of 1936, and many other great struggles.  Socialists argue
that these democratic workers' organisations need to take power from the
capitalists and break up their state."
Anarchists agree. Indeed, they argued that workers' organisations should
"break up" and replace the state long before Lenin discovered this in
1917. For example, Bakunin argued in the 1860s as follows:

"the federative alliance of all working men's associations . . .
constitute the Commune . . . all provinces, communes and associations .
. . by first reorganising on revolutionary lines . . . [will] constitute
the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . .
[and] organise a revolutionary force capable defeating reaction . . .
[and for] self-defence . . . [The] revolution everywhere must be created
by the people, and supreme control must always belong to the people
organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial
associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of
revolutionary delegation. . ."

And:

"The future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom up,
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."

Thus it is somewhat ironic to have Leninists present basic anarchist
ideas as if they had thought of them first!

Their history lesson continues:

"This happened in Russia in October 1917 in a revolution led by the
Bolshevik Party."

In reality, this did not happen. In October 1917, the Bolshevik Party
took power in the name of the workers' councils, the councils themselves
did not take power. This is confirmed by Trotsky, who notes that the
Bolshevik Party conference of April 1917 "was devoted to the following
fundamental question: Are we heading toward the conquest of power in the
name of the socialist revolution or are we helping (anybody and
everybody) to complete the democratic revolution? . . .  Lenin's
position was this: . . . the capture of the soviet majority; the
overthrow of the Provisional Government; the seizure of power through
the soviets." Note, through the soviets not by the soviets thus
indicating the fact the Party would hold the real power, not the soviets
of workers' delegates. Moreover, he states that "to prepare the
insurrection and to carry it out under cover of preparing for the Second
Soviet Congress and under the slogan of defending it, was of inestimable
advantage to us." He continued by noting that it was "one thing to
prepare an armed insurrection under the naked slogan of the seizure of
power by the party, and quite another thing to prepare and then carry
out an insurrection under the slogan of defending the rights of the
Congress of Soviets." The Soviet Congress just provided "the legal
cover" for the Bolshevik plans rather than a desire to see the Soviets
actually start managing society. [The Lessons of October]

In 1920, he argued that "[w]e have more than once been accused of having
substituted for the dictatorships of the Soviets the dictatorship of the
party. Yet it can be said with complete justice that the dictatorship of
the Soviets became possible only be means of the dictatorship of the
party. It is thanks to the . . . party . . . [that] the Soviets . . .
[became] transformed from shapeless parliaments of labour into the
apparatus of the supremacy of labour. In this 'substitution' of the
power of the party for the power of the working class these is nothing
accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The
Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class."
[Terrorism and Communism]
In 1937 he continued this theme by arguing that "the proletariat can
take power only through its vanguard." Thus, rather than the working
class as a whole "seizing power", it is the "vanguard" which takes power
- "a revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is still by no
means the sovereign ruler of society." He mocked the anarchist idea that
a socialist revolution should be based on the self-management of workers
within their own autonomous class organisations:
"Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the party dictatorship
should understand that only thanks to the party dictatorship were the
Soviets able to lift themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain
the state form of the proletariat." [Stalinism and Bolshevism]

As can be seen, over a 17 year period Trotsky argued that it was the
party which ruled, not the councils. The workers' councils became little
more than rubber-stamps for the Bolshevik government (and not even that,
as the central government only submitted a fraction of its decrees to
the Central Executive of the national soviet, and that soviet was not
even in permanent session). As Russian Anarchist Voline made clear "for,
the anarchists declared, if 'power' really should belong to the soviets,
it could not belong to the Bolshevik Party, and if it should belong to
that Party, as the Bolsheviks envisaged, it could not belong to the
soviets."

In other words, the workers' councils took power in name only. Real
power rested with the central government and the workers' councils
become little more than a means to elect the government. Rather than
manage society directly, the soviets simply became a transmission belt
for the decrees and orders of the Bolshevik party. Hardly a system to
inspire anyone.

The SWP, after re-writing Russian history, move onto Spanish history:
"It did not happen in Spain in 1936. The CNT, a trade union heavily
influenced by anarchist ideas, led a workers' uprising in the city of
Barcelona that year. Workers' councils effectively ran the city. 

"But the capitalist state machine did not simply disappear. The
government and its army, which was fighting against Franco's fascist
forces, remained, although it had no authority in Barcelona. 

"The government even offered to hand power over to the leaders of the
CNT. But the CNT believed that any form of state was wrong.  It turned
down the possibility of forming a workers' state, which could have
broken the fascists' coup and the capitalist state. 

"Worse, it accepted positions in a government that was dominated by
pro-capitalist forces. 

"That government crushed workers' power in Barcelona, and in doing so
fatally undermined the fight against fascism."

It is hard to know where to start in this distortion of history.

Firstly, we have to point out that the CNT did lead a workers' uprising
in 1936 but in was in response to a military coup and occurred all
across Spain. The army was not "fighting against Franco's fascist
forces" but rather had been the means by which Franco had tried to
impose his version of fascism. The government did nothing, even refusing
to distribute arms to the workers. Thus the CNT faced the might of the
Spanish army rising in a fascist coup. That, as we shall see influenced
its decisions. By distorting the context of the events of 1936, the SWP
distorts the readers understanding of what happened.

Secondly, anarchism does not think that the "capitalist state machine"
will "simply disappear." Rather, anarchists think that (to quote
Kropotkin) the revolution "must smash the State and replace it with the
Federation [of workers' associations and communes] and it will act
accordingly." In other words, the state does not disappear, it is
destroyed and replaced with a new, libertarian, form of social
structure. Thus the SWP misrepresents anarchist theory.

Thirdly, yes, the Catalan government did offer to stand aside for the
CNT and the CNT rejected the offer. Why? The SWP claim that "the CNT
believed that any form of state was wrong" and that is why it did not
take power. That is true, but what the SWP fail to mention is more
important. The CNT refused to implement libertarian communism after the
defeat of the army uprising in 1936 simply because it did not want to be
isolated nor have to fight the republican government as well as the
fascists. It did not take power nor did it destroy the state, as
anarchist argue. Rather it ignored the state and this was its undoing.
Thus the SWP attacks anarchism for anarchists failing to act in an
anarchist manner! 

Obviously it is impossible to discuss the question of the CNT during the
Spanish Revolution in depth here. Interested readers can visit this web
page for a fuller discussion:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append32.html

The SWP try and generalise from these experiences:

"In different ways, the lessons of Russia and Spain are the same.  The
organisational questions thrown up in particular struggles are critical
when it comes to the working class challenging capitalism. 

"Workers face conflicting pressures. On the one hand, they are forced to
compete in the labour market. They feel powerless, as an individual,
against the boss. 
"That is why workers can accept the bosses' view of the world. At the
same time constant attacks on workers' conditions create a need for
workers to unite and fight back together. 

"These two pressures mean workers' ideas are uneven. Some see through
the bosses' lies. Others can be largely taken in. Most part accept and
part reject capitalist ideas. The overall consciousness of the working
class is always shifting. People become involved in struggles which lead
them to break with pro-capitalist ideas."
That is very true and anarchists are well aware of it. That is why
anarchists organise groups, produce propaganda, argue their ideas with
others and encourage direct action and solidarity. We do so because we
are aware that the ideas within society are mixed and that struggle
leads people to break with pro-capitalist ideas. To quote Bakunin:

"the germs of [socialist thought] . . . [are to] be found in the
instinct of every earnest worker. The goal . . .  is to make the worker
fully aware of what he wants, to unjam within him a stream of thought
corresponding to his instinct . . . What impedes the swifter development
of this salutary though among the working masses? Their ignorance to be
sure, that is, for the most part the political and religious prejudices
with which self-interested classes still try to obscure their conscious
and their natural instinct. How can we dispel this ignorance and destroy
these harmful prejudices?  By education and propaganda? . . . they are
insufficient . . .  [and] who will conduct this propaganda? . . . [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 . . . To deliver [the worker] from that ignorance [of
reactionary ideas], the International relies on collective experience he
gains in its bosom, especially on the progress of the collective
struggle of the workers against the bosses . . .  As soon as he begins
to take an active part in this wholly material struggle, . . . Socialism
replaces religion in his mind. . .  through practice and collective
experience . . . the progressive and development of the economic
struggle will bring him more and more to recognise his true enemies . .
.  The workers thus enlisted in the struggle will necessarily . . .
recognise himself to be a revolutionary socialist, and he will act as
one."

Therefore anarchists are well aware of the importance of struggle and
propaganda in winning people to anarchist ideas. No anarchist has ever
argued otherwise.