H.1 les anarchistes se sont-ils toujours opposés au socialisme d'état ?
Oui. Les anarchistes ont toujours dit que le vrai socialisme ne peut pas être créé en utilisant un État. Le noyau de base de l'argument est simple. Le socialisme implique l'égalité, pourtant l'État signifie l'inégalité -- inégalité en termes de pouvoir. Comme nous l'avons discuté dans la section B.2, les anarchistes considèrent qu'un des aspects définissant l'état est sa nature hiérarchique. En d'autres termes, la délégation de pouvoir aux mains de quelques-uns. En tant que tel, il est en contradiction avec l'idée de base du socialisme, à savoir l'égalité sociale.
Ceux qui font partie du corps dirigeant dans un État ont plus de pouvoir que ceux qui les ont élus.
C'est ce raisonnement que suivent Malatesta et Hamon :
- « Il y a beaucoup plus de raisons faisant que nous sommes les socialistes les plus logiques et les plus complets, puisque nous exigeons pour chaque personne non pas simplement sa part entière de la richesse de la société mais également de sa part entière de pouvoir »[1].
C'est avec cette perspective que les anarchistes ont combattu l'idée du socialisme et du marxisme d'État (bien que nous devrions souligner que les formes libertaires du marxisme, telles que le communisme de conseil, ont des fortes similitudes avec l'anarchisme). Cette opposition au socialisme autoritaire est un aspect central de l'anarchisme, une opposition qui a été forte et consistante. Tandis qu'il est parfois dit par certains droitistes que les socialistes libertaires et les anarchistes ont seulement commencé à exprimer leur opposition au marxisme et au léninisme après que l'Union Soviétique se soit effondrée, la vérité est totalement différente. Des anarchistes, nous devons le souligner, ont été opposés à toutes les formes de socialisme d'état dès le début (dans le cas de la révolution russe, les anarchistes étaient, du côté gauche, parmi les premières victimes des Bolcheviques).
En effet, l'histoire du marxisme est, en partie, une histoire de ses luttes contre les anarchistes, comme l'histoire de l'anarchisme est également, en partie, une histoire de sa lutte contre les diverses formes de marxisme et ses ramifications. Enoncer, ou dire implicetement, que les anarchistes se sont seulement récemment opposés au marxisme est faux -- nous nous y sommes opposés depuis le début.
Tandis que Stirner et Proudhon écrivaient beaucoup de pages sur les maux et les contradictions du socialisme d'état, les anarchistes combattaient vraiment la forme marxiste du socialisme d'état, et ceci depuis Bakounine. C'est parce que, jusqu'à la Première Internationale, Marx et Engels étaient des penseurs socialistes relativement inconnus. Proudhon connaissait Marx (ils s'étaient rencontré en France dans les années 1840s et avaient correspondu) mais le marxisme était inconnu en France durant l'existence de Proudhon, qui n'a donc pas pu critiquer directement le marxisme (Cependant, il a critiqué Louis Blanc et d'autres socialistes d'état français). De même, quand Stirner écrit L'unique et sa propriété, le marxisme n'existait pas, à part quelques travaux de Marx et Engels. En effet, on pourrait estimer que le marxisme a finalement pris forme après que Marx ait lu le classique de Stirner et ait produit son diatribe notoirement imprécis L'idéologie Allemande en réponse. Cependant, comme Proudhon, Stirner a attaqué les socialistes d'état et les communistes.
Avant de discuter de l'opposition et de la critique du marxisme de Bakounine dans la prochaine section, nous devrions considérer les pensées de Stirner et de Proudhon sur le socialisme d'Etat. Ces critiques contiennent des idées importantes et ainsi valent la peine d'être récapitulées. Cependant, il vaut la peine de noter qu'au moment où Stirner et Proudhon écrivaient, les idées communistes étaient toutes autoritaires par nature. Le communisme libertaire s'est seulement développé après la mort de Bakounine en 1876. Ceci signifie que quand Proudhon et Stirner critiquaient le « communisme », ils s'attaquaient à une forme spécifique de communisme, la forme qui a subordonné l'individu à la communauté. Les communistes anarchistes comme Kropotkine et Malatesta se sont également opposés à de tels genres de « communisme » (comme Kropotkine le soulignait, le communisme d'« avant et pendant l'année 1848 » "a été proposé sous une telle forme que cette dernière suffit entièrement à expliquer la méfiance de Proudhon quant à son effet sur la liberté. La vieille idée du communisme était l'idée des communautés monastiques ... Les derniers vestiges de la liberté et de l'énergie individuelle seraient détruits, si l'humanité devait jamais passer par un tel communisme"[2].). Naturellement, il se peut que Stirner et Proudhon auraient rejeté le communisme libertaire de la même façon, mais souvenez-vous que toutes les formes de « communisme » ne sont pas identiques.
Pour Stirner, la question clé était que le communisme (ou le socialisme), comme le libéralisme, considère l'« humain » plutôt que l'individu. « être considéré comme juste une pièce, une partie de la société » a affirmé Striner, "l'individu ne peut pas le supporter -- parce qu'il est plus que cela ; son unicité rejete cette conception"[3]. En tant que tel, sa protestation contre le communisme était semblable à sa protestation contre le libéralisme (en effet, il a attiré l'attention sur leur similitude en appelant le socialisme et le communisme comme du « libéralisme social » ).
Stirner se rendait compte que le capitalisme n'était pas le grand défenseur de la liberté qu'il prétendait être. « L'acquisition agitée », a-t-il dit, « ne nous laisse pas reprendre notre souffle, prendre le plaisir d'aprécier ce que nous avons : nous n'obtenons pas de réconfort de nos possessions ». Le communisme, par l'« organisation du travail », peut « porter ses fruits » de telle manière que « nous venons à un accord au sujet du travail humain, qu'ils ne peuvent pas, comme sous la concurrence, réclamer à toute heure et toute notre vie ». Cependant, le communisme « passe sous silence ceux sur qui le temps sera gagné ». Lui, en revanche, souligne qu'il est pour l'individu, « pour se réjouir en lui-même, en tant qu'individu »[4].
Ainsi le socialisme d'Etat n'identifie pas le but de l'association comme étant de libérer l'individu et de le soumettre, au contraire, à une nouvelle tyrannie : "Ce n'est pas un autre état (tel que l'état du peuple) que les hommes veulent, mais leur union, cette union fluide de tout qui est libre -- un état existe même sans ma coopération . . . l'établissement indépendant de l'état fonde mon manque d'indépendance ; son état comme 'croissance normale', son organisation, exige que ma nature ne se développe pas librement, mais doivent s'y adapter"[5].
De même, Stirner a noté le fait que le « communisme, par l'abolition de toute la propriété personnelle, me rend seulement encore plus dépendant à l'égard des autres, de la collectivité ... [ce qui est] une condition gênant ma libre circulation, une puissance souveraine au-dessus de moi. Le communisme se révolte à raison contre la pression que j'éprouve de la part de différents propriétaires ; mais combien est plus horrible cette force qu'il met dans les mains de la collectivité »[6].
L'histoire a confirmé ceci irréfutablement. En nationalisant la propriété, les régimes socialistes des divers état ont transformés l'ouvrier domestique du capitaliste en serf de l'état. En revanche, les communiste-anarchistes plaident pour l'association libre et l'auto-gestion des ouvriers comme moyens de s'assurer que la propriété ne se transforme pas en déni de liberté plutôt que de laisser l'état diriger. En tant que telle, l'attaque de Stirner sur ce que Marx a nommé le « communisme vulgaire » est encore importante et trouve des échos dans des écritures des communistes-anarchistes aussi bien que dans les meilleurs travaux de Marx et de ses héritiers libertaires.
Pour montrer la différence entre le « communisme » que Stirner a attaqué et l'anarchisme-communisme, nous pouvons prouver que Kropotkine n'était pas « évasif » au sujet de l'importance de l'organisation de la production. Comme Stirner, il a pensé que sous le communisme libertaire l'individu "déverserait son travail dans les champs, les usines, etc., comme un dû à la société en tant que contribution à la production générale. Et il utilisera la deuxième moitié de son jour, sa semaine, ou son année, pour satisfaire ses besoins artistiques ou scientifiques, ou ses loisirs"[7]. En d'autres termes, il a considéré l'objectif entier de l'organisation du travail comme un moyen de fournir à l'individu le temps et les ressources requises pour exprimer leur individualité. En tant que tels, l'anarcho-communisme incorpore les soucis et les arguments légitimes de Stirner.
Des arguments semblables à ceux de Stirner peuvent être trouvés dans les travaux de Proudhon contre les divers arrangements du socialisme d'état qui existait en France au milieu du dix-neuvième siècle. Il a en particulier attaqué les idées de Louis Blanc. Blanc, dont le plus célèbre livre était l'Organisation du Travail (édité en 1840) a noté le fait que des défectuosités sociales pourraient être résolues au moyen de réformes lancées et financées par le gouvernement. Plus spécifiquement, il a noté le fait qu'il était « nécessaire d'employer la puissance entière de l'état » pour assurer la création et le succès des associations des ouvriers (ou « des ateliers sociaux »). Puisque « ce dont les prolétaires manquent pour se libérer eux-mêmes sont les outils du travail », le gouvernement « doit leur en fournir ». « L'état », en bref, « devrait se placer résolument à la tête de l'industrie ». Les capitalistes seraient encouragés à investir l'argent dans ces ateliers, pour lesquels il y aurait un intérêt garanti. De tels ateliers lancés par l'état forceraient bientôt l'industrie privé à se changer en ateliers sociaux, pour éliminer la concurrence[8].
Proudhon s'est opposé à ce schéma à beaucoup de niveaux. Premièrement, il a noté le fait que l'arrangement de Blanc faisait « appel à l'état pour une association silencieuse ; c'est-à -dire, qu'il se met à genoux devant les capitalistes et reconnait la toute-puissance du monopole ». Etant donné que Proudhon a vu l'état comme l'instrument de la classe capitaliste, demander que l'état supprime le capitalisme était illogique et impossible. D'ailleurs, en obtenant les fonds pour « l'atelier social » de la part des capitalistes, l'arrangement de Blanc minait à peine leur pouvoir. Le « capital et le pouvoir », Proudhon a énoncé, « les organes secondaires de la société, sont toujours les dieux que le socialisme adore ; si le capital et le pouvoir n'existaient pas, elle les inventerait »[9]. Il a souligné la nature autoritaire de l'arrangement de Blanc :
- " M. Blanc n'est jamais fatigué de faire appel à l'autorité, alors que le socialisme se déclare nettement anarchiste ; M. Blanc place le pouvoir au-dessus de la société, et le socialisme tend à le subordonner à la société ; M. Blanc considère la vie sociale comme une conséquence, et le socialisme estime qu'elle prend naissance et se développe ; M. Blanc court après la politique, et le socialisme est à la recherche de la science. Plus d'hypocrisie, veux-je dire à M. Blanc : vous ne désirez ni catholicisme ni monarchie ni noblesse, mais vous devez avoir un Dieu, une religion, une dictature, une censure, une hiérarchie, des distinctions, et des rangs. Pour ma part, je nie votre Dieu, votre autorité, votre souveraineté, votre état juridique, et toutes vos représentations mystificatrices"[10].
Proudhon s'est également opposé à la nature « descendantes » des idées de Blanc . Au lieu de réformer d'en haut, Proudhon a souligné le besoin pour les personnes de la classe ouvrière de s'organiser pour leur propre libération. Comme il a dit, le « problème se posant à la classe ouvrière ... [ n'est ] pas la destruction, mais le dépassement du pouvoir et du monopole, -- c'est-à -dire, produire, grace aux gens, des profondeurs de la classe ouvrière, une plus grande autorité, un fait plus efficace, qui enveloppera le capital et l'état et les subjuguera ». Parce que, « pour combattre et réduire le pouvoir, le remettre à sa place dans la société, il est inutile de changer les gardiens de ce pouvoir ou d'initier certaines variations dans ses fonctionnements : on doit trouver une combinaison agricole et industrielle au moyen de laquelle le pouvoir, aujourd'hui maître de la société, deviendra son esclave »[11]. Proudhon a souligné, en 1848, que « le prolétariat doit s'émanciper lui-même sans l'aide du gouvernment »[12]. C'était parce que l'Etat « se trouve enchainé inévitablement au capital et dirigé contre le proletariat »[13]. En outre, en garantissant le paiement des intérêts, le shéma de Blanc assurerait l'exploitation perpetuelle du travail par le capital.
Proudhon, en revanche, a plaidé pour une approche bi-directionnelle pour saper les bases du capitalisme : la création d'associations d'ouvriers et l'organisation du crédit. En créant les banques mutuelles, qui ont fourni le crédit à son vrai coût, les ouvriers pourraient créer des associations pour concurrencer des sociétés capitalistes, les conduisant vers la faillite et ainsi éliminant l'exploitation une fois pour toutes par l'auto-gestion des ouvriers. De cette façon, la classe ouvrière s'émancipe elle-même du capitalisme et établit une société socialiste grace à une lame de fond, grace à leurs propres efforts et activités. Proudhon, comme le note le marxiste Paul Thomas, « a cru ardemment ... dans le salut des ouvriers, par leurs propres efforts, par l'action économique et sociale ... Proudhon préconisait, et dans une large mesure a inspiré, que l'état libère le terrain pour laisser la place à des associations de classe ouvrière autonomes »[14].
Rejetant la révolution violente (et, en fait, les grèves, comme contre productives) il a plaidé pour que des moyens économiques mettent fin à l'exploitation économique et, en tant que tels, il voyait l'anarchisme survenir par la réforme, par l'intermédiaire de la concurrence des associations d'ouvriers prenant la place de l'industrie capitaliste (à la différence des anarchistes qui vont lui succéder, qui étaient des révolutionnaires, et qui ont notés le fait que le capitalisme ne peut pas être reformé et ont ainsi soutenu des grèves et d'autres formes de lutte collective de la classe ouvrière, etc.). Étant donné que la majeure partie de la classe ouvrière française était constituée d'artisans et de paysans, une telle approche reflétait le contexte social dans lequel elle a été proposée.
C'était ce contexte social, cette prédominance des paysans et des artisans dans la société française qui a formé les idées de Proudhon. Il n'a jamais manqué de souligner que l'association serait tyrannique si elle s'imposait aux paysans et aux artisans (plutôt, il a pensé que des associations seraient librement rejointes par des ouvriers si ceux-ci pensaient que cela était dans leur intérêt). Il a également souligné que la propriété d'état des moyens de production était un danger à la liberté de l'ouvrier industriel et, d'ailleurs, par la suite un capitalisme de l'état comme nouveau patron. Comme il l'a dit en 1848, il « n'a pas voulu voir l'état confisquer les mines, les canaux et les chemins de fer ; cela s'ajouterait à la monarchie, et à plus d'esclavage salarié. Nous voulons que les mines, les canaux, les chemins de fer soient remis aux associations d'ouvriers démocratiquement organisés ... ces associations seront des modèles pour l'agriculture, l'industrie et le commerce, le noyau pilote de cette vaste fédération de compagnies et de sociétés formant le socle de la république sociale démocratique »[15]. Les associations d'ouvriers auraient leur places dans les industries qui en ont objectivement besoin (c.-à -d. l'industrie capitaliste) et là où elles sont désirées.
Marx, naturellement, a répondu au travail de Proudhon Système des contradictions économiques sous-titré Philosopie de la Misère, par un ouvrage nommé Misére de la Philosophie. Le travail de Marx a éveillé peu d'intérêt une fois édité, bien que Proudhon ait soigneusement lu et ait annoté le travail de Marx, et disait que c'était de la « diffamation » et un « tissu de mensonges, de calomnies, de falsifications et du plagiat » (Il a même traité Marx de « ténia du socialisme. »)[16]. Malheureusement, Proudhon n'a pas répondu au travail de Marx, à cause d'une crise familliale aiguë et du début de la révolution de 1848 en France. Cependant, étant donné ses avis sur Louis Blanc et sur d'autres socialistes qui voyait le socialisme se réaliser par le pouvoir de l'Etat, nous pouvons penser qu'il n'aurait par supporter les idées de Marx.
Ainsi, tandis qu'aucun des arguments de Proudhon et de Stirner n'est directement dirigé vers le marxisme, leurs idées sont applicables à une large part du marxisme traditionnel, en tant que celui-ci a hérité des idées du socialisme d'Etat, qu'ils ont attaqués. Ainsi ils ont fait la critique des idées socialistes et communistes qui ont existé pendant leurs vies. Beaucoup de leur analyse ont étés incorporés dans le collectivisme et les idées communistes des anarchistes qui les ont suivis (certains directement, comme avec Proudhon, certains par coïncidence comme avec le travail de Stirner qui a été rapidement oublié, et qui a eu seulement un impact sur le mouvement anarchiste quand George Henry "MacKay" l'a redécouvert dans les années 1890). Ceci peut être vu dans le fait que les idées de Proudhon sur la gestion de la production par les associations ouvrieres, l'opposition à la nationalisation comme étant du capitalisme d'Etat, et le besoin d'action venant de la base, de la part des personnes de la classe ouvrière elles-mêmes, toutes ont trouvé leurs places dans le communisme-anarchisme et l'anarcho-syndicalisme et dans leurs critiques du marxisme traditionnel (tel que la social-démocratie) et du léninisme.
Les échos de ces critiques peuvent être trouvés dans les commentaires de Bakounine en 1868 :
- « Je déteste le communisme parce que c'est la négation de la liberté et parce que pour moi l'humanité est impensable sans la liberté. Je ne suis pas un communiste, parce que le communisme concentre et engloutit en soi au profit de l'état toutes les forces de la société, parce qu'il mène inévitablement à la concentration de la propriété dans les mains de l'état ... Je veux voir la société et la propriété collective ou sociale organisées de la base vers le haut, par des associations libres, pas des dirigeants vers le bas, au moyen de n'importe quel genre d'autorité que ce soit ... C'est le sens dans lequel je suis un collectiviste et pas un communiste »[17].
C'est avec Bakounine que le marxisme et l'anarchisme sont entrés en conflit direct. C'était Bakounine qui mènait la lutte contre Marx dans l'Association Internationale des Ouvriers entre 1868 et 1872. C'était dans ces échanges que les deux écoles du socialisme (la libertaire et l'autoritaire) se sont clarifiés elles-mêmes. Avec Bakounine, la critique anarchiste du marxisme (et du socialisme d'état en général) commence à atteindre sa forme finale. Inutile de dire que cette critique a continué à se développer après la mort de Bakounine (en particulier après les expériences des mouvements et des révolutions marxistes réelles). Cependant, beaucoup de celles ci se sont basées sur plusieurs des prévisions originales et des analyses de Bakounine.
Nous discuterons la critique de Bakounine dans la prochaine section.
Notes et references
- ? Ni Dieux, Ni Maitres**, vol. 2, p. 20
- ? Agis pour toi-mĂŞme, p. 98
- ? L'unique et sa propriété, p. 265
- ? Op. Cit., pp. 268-9
- ? Op. Cit., p. 224
- ? L'unique et sa propriété, p. 257
- ? La conquéte du pain, p. 111
- ? cité par K. Steven Vincent, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism**, p. 139
- ? cité par Vincent, Op. Cit., p. 157
- ? Systéme des contradictions économiques
- ? Systéme des contradictions économiques, p. 398 et p. 397
- ? cité par George Woodcock, **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : Une Biographie**, p. 125
- ? Proudhon, **Systéme des contradictions économiques**, p. 399
- ? Karl Marx et les Anarchistes, pp. 177-8
- ? Ni Dieux, Ni Maitres**, vol. 1, p. 62
- ? cité par George Woodcock, **Proudhon**, p. 102
- ? cité par K.J. Kenafick, **Michael Bakounine et Karl Marx**, pp. 67-8
Bakunin and Marx famously clashed in the first International
Working Men's Association between 1868 and 1872. This
conflict helped clarify the anarchist opposition to the ideas
of Marxism and can be considered as the first major theoretical
analysis and critique of Marxism by anarchists. Later critiques
followed, of course, particularly after the degeneration of
Social Democracy into reformism and the failure of the Russian
Revolution (both of which allowed the theoretical critiques to
be enriched by empirical evidence) but the Bakunin/Marx conflict
laid the ground for what came after. As such, an overview of
Bakunin's critique is essential.
First, however, we must stress that Marx and Bakunin had many
similar ideas. They both stressed the need for working people
to organise themselves to overthrow capitalism. They both argued
for a socialist revolution from below. They argued for collective
ownership of the means of production. They both constantly stressed
that the emancipation of the workers must be the task of the
workers themselves. They differed, of course, in exactly how
these common points should be implemented in practice. Both,
moreover, had a tendency to misrepresent the opinions of the
other on certain issues (particularly as the struggle reached
its climax). Anarchists, unsurprisingly, argue Bakunin has been
proved right by history, so confirming the key aspects of his
critique of Marx.
So what was Bakunin's critique of Marxism? There are five main
areas. Firstly, there is the question of current activity (i.e.
whether the workers' movement should participate in "politics"
and the nature of revolutionary working class organisation).
Secondly, there is the issue of the form of the revolution (i.e.
whether it should be a political then an economic one, or
whether it should be both at the same time). Thirdly, there
is the issue of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Fourthly,
there is the question of whether political power can be seized
by the working class as a whole or whether it can only be
exercised by a small minority. Fifthly, there was the issue
of whether the revolution be centralised or decentralised in
nature. We shall discuss each in turn.
On the issue of current struggle, the differences between Marx
and Bakunin were clear. For Marx, the proletariat had to take
part in bourgeois elections as an organised political party.
As the resolution of the (gerrymandered) Hague Congress of
First International put it, "[i]n its struggle against the
collective power of the possessing classes the proletariat
can act as a class only by constituting itself a distinct
political party, opposed to all the old parties formed by
the possessing classes . . . the conquest of political
power becomes the great duty of the proletariat." [Marx,
Engels, Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 85]
This political party must stand for elections and win
votes. As Marx argued in the preamble of the French Workers'
Party, the workers must turn the franchise "from a means of
deception . . . into an instrument of emancipation." This
can be considered as part of the process outlined in the
Communist Manifesto, where it was argued that the
"immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of
all the other proletarian parties," namely the "conquest
of political power by the proletariat," the "first step
in the revolution by the working class" being "to raise
the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win
the battle of democracy." Engels latter stressed (in 1895)
that the "Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the
winning of universal suffrage, of democracy, as one of the
first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat"
and that German Social Democracy had showed workers of all
countries "how to make use of universal suffrage." [Marx
and Engels Reader, p. 566, p. 484, p. 490 and p. 565]
With this analysis in mind, Marxist influenced political
parties have consistently argued for and taken part in
election campaigns, seeking office as a means of spreading
socialist ideas and as a means of pursuing the socialist
revolution. The Social Democratic parties which were the
first Marxist parties (and which developed under Marx
and Engels watchful eyes) saw revolution in terms of
winning a majority within Parliamentary elections and
using this political power to abolish capitalism (once
this was done, the state would "wither away" as classes
would no longer exist). In effect, these parties aimed to
reproduce Marx's account of the forming of the Paris
Commune on the level of the national Parliament. Marx
in his justly famous work The Civil War in France
reported how the Commune "was formed of the municipal
councillors" who had been "chosen by universal suffrage
in the various wards of the town" in the municipal
elections held on March 26th, 1871. This new Commune
then issued a series of decrees which reformed the
existing state (for example, by suppressing the
standing army and replacing it with the armed people,
and so on). This Marx summarised by stating that "the
working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made
state machinery, and wield it for its own purposed."
[Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 287 and p. 285]
As Engels put it in a latter letter, it was "simply a
question of showing that the victorious proletariat
must first refashion the old bureaucratic,
administratively centralised state power before
it can use it for its own purposes." [quoted by
David P. Perrin, The Socialist Party of Great Britain,
p. 64] He repeated this elsewhere, arguing that "after the
victory of the Proletariat, the only organisation
the victorious working class finds ready-made for
use is that of the State. It may require adaptation to
the new functions. But to destroy that at such a moment
would mean to destroy the only organism by means of which
the victorious working class can exert its newly conquered
power, keep down its capitalist enemies and carry out . . .
economic revolution." [our emphasis, Marx, Engels and
Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 173]
Bakunin, in contrast, argued that while the communists
"imagine they can attain their goal by the development
and organisation of the political power of the working
classes . . . aided by bourgeois radicalism" anarchists
"believe they can succeed only through the development
and organisation of the non-political or anti-political
power of the working classes." The Communists "believe
it necessary to organise the workers' forces in order
to seize the political power of the State," while
anarchists "organise for the purpose of destroying
it." Bakunin saw this in terms of creating new organs
of working class power in opposition to the state,
organised "from the bottom up, by the free association
or federation of workers, starting with the associations,
then going on to the communes, the region, the nations,
and, finally, culminating in a great international
and universal federation." [Bakunin on Anarchism,
pp. 262-3 and p. 270] In other words, a system of
workers' councils. As such, he constantly argued for
workers, peasants and artisans to organise into unions
and join the International Workingmen's Association,
so becoming "a real force . . . which knows what to do
and is therefore capable of guiding the revolution in
the direction marked out by the aspirations of the
people: a serious international organisation of workers'
associations of all lands capable of replacing this
departing world of states." [Op. Cit., p. 174]
To Marx's argument that workers should organise politically,
and send their representations to Parliament, Bakunin argued
that when "the workers . . . send common workers . . . to
Legislative Assemblies . . . The worker-deputies, transplanted
into a bourgeois environment, into an atmosphere of purely
bourgeois ideas, will in fact cease to be workers and,
becoming Statesmen, they will become bourgeois . . . For men
do not make their situations; on the contrary, men are made
by them." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 108]
As far as history goes, the experience of Social Democracy
confirmed Bakunin's analysis. A few years after Engels death
in 1895, German Social Democracy was racked by the "revisionism"
debate. This debate did not spring from the minds of a few
leaders, isolated from the movement, but rather expressed
developments within the movement itself. In effect, the
revisionists wanted to adjust the party rhetoric to what the
party was actually doing and so the battle against the revisionists
basically represented a battle between what the party said it
was doing and its actual practice. As one of the most distinguished
historians of this period put it, the "distinction between the
contenders remained largely a subjective one, a difference of
ideas in the evaluation of reality rather than a difference in
the realm of action." [C. Schorske, German Social Democracy,
p. 38] Even Rosa Luxemburg (one of the fiercest critics of
revisionism) acknowledged in Reform or Revolution that it
was "the final goal of socialism [that] constitutes the only
decisive factor distinguishing the social democratic movement
from bourgeois democracy and bourgeois radicalism." [Rosa
Luxemburg Speaks, p. 36] As such, the Marxist critics of
"revisionism" failed to place the growth in revisionist ideas
in the tactics being used, instead seeing it in terms of a
problem in ideas. By the start of the First World War, the
Social Democrats had become so corrupted by its activities in
bourgeois institutions it supported its state (and ruling class)
and voted for war credits rather than denounce the war as
Imperialist slaughter for profits (see also
section J.2.6 for
more discussion on the effect of electioneering on radical
parties). Clearly, Bakunin was proved right.
However, we must stress that because Bakunin rejected
participating in bourgeois politics, it did not mean
that he rejected "politics" or "political struggle" in
general (also see
section J.2.10).
As he put it, "it is
absolutely impossible to ignore political and philosophical
questions" and "the proletariat itself will pose them" in
the International. He argued that political struggle will
come from the class struggle, as "[w]ho can deny that out
of this ever-growing organisation of the militant
solidarity of the proletariat against bourgeois
exploitation there will issue forth the political
struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie?"
Anarchists simply thought that the "policy of the
proletariat" should be "the destruction of the State"
rather than working within it. [Bakunin on Anarchism,
p. 301, p. 302 and p. 276] As such, the people "must
organise their powers apart from and against the State."
[The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 376]
As should be obvious by now, the difference between Marx
and Bakunin on the nature of working class organisation
in the struggle reflected these differences on political
struggle. Bakunin clearly advocated what would later
by termed a syndicalist strategy based on direct action
(in particular strikes) and workers' unions which would
"bear in themselves the living seeds of the new society
which is to replace the old world. They are creating not
only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself."
[Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 255] This union movement would
be complemented by a specific anarchist organisation which
would work within it to influence it towards anarchist aims
by the "natural influence" of its members (see
section J.3.7 for a
fuller discussion of this). Marx argued for
political parties, utilising elections, which, as the
history of Social Democracy indicates, did not have quite
the outcome Marx would have liked.
Section J.2 discusses
direct action, electioneering and whether anarchist
abstentionism implies disinterest in politics in more
detail.
Which brings us to the second issue, namely the nature
of the revolution itself. For Bakunin, a revolution meant
a social revolution from below. This involved both the
abolition of the state and the expropriation of capital.
In his words, "the revolution must set out from the first
[to] radically and totally to destroy the State." The
"natural and necessary consequences" of which will be
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." There "can no longer be any
successful political . . . revolution unless the
political revolution is transformed into social
revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,
p. 170 and p. 171]
Which, incidentally, disproves Engels' claims that Bakunin
considered "the state as the main evil to be
abolished."
[Marx and Engels Reader, p. 728] Clearly, Engels assertions
misrepresent Bakunin's position, as Bakunin always stressed
that economic and political transformation should occur at
the same time during the revolutionary process. Given that
Bakunin thought the state was the protector of capitalism,
no economic change could be achieved until such time as it
was abolished. This also meant that Bakunin considered a
political revolution before an economic one to mean the
continued slavery of the workers. As he argued, "[t]o win
political freedom first can signify no other thing but to
win this freedom only, leaving for the first days at least
economic and social relations in the same old state, --
that is, leaving the proprietors and capitalists with
their insolent wealth, and the workers with their poverty."
[The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 294] With
capitalists' economic power intact, could the workers'
political power remain strong? As such, "every political
revolution taking place prior to and consequently without
a social revolution must necessarily be a bourgeois
revolution, and a bourgeois revolution can only be
instrumental in bringing about bourgeois Socialism
-- that is, it is bound to end in a new, more hypocritical
and more skilful, but no less oppressive, exploitation
of the proletariat by the bourgeois." [Op. Cit., p. 289]
Did Marx and Engels hold this position? Apparently so. Discussing
the Paris Commune, Marx noted that it was "the political form
at last discovered under which to work out the economic
emancipation of labour," and as the "political rule of the
producer cannot coexist with the perpetuation of his social
slavery" the Commune was to "serve as a lever for uprooting the
economic foundations upon which rests the existence of classes."
[Marx and Engels, Selected Writings, p. 290] Engels argued
that the "proletariat seizes the public power, and by means
of this transforms the . . . means of production . . . into
public property." [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 717] In the
Communist Manifesto they argued that "the first step in
the revolution by the working class" is the "rais[ing] the
proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the
battle of democracy." The proletariat "will use its political
supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois,
to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of
the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling
class." [Manifesto of the Communist Party, p. 52]
Similarly, when Marx discussed what the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" meant, he argued (in reply to Bakunin's question
of "over whom will the proletariat rule") that it simply meant
"that so long as other classes continue to exist, the
capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it
(for with the coming of the proletariat to power, its
enemies will not yet have disappeared), it must use
measures of force, hence governmental measures; if it
itself still remains a class and the economic conditions on
which the class struggle and the existence of classes have not
yet disappeared, they must be forcibly removed or transformed,
and the process of their transformation must be forcibly
accelerated." [The Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 542-3] Note,
"capitalists," not "former capitalists," so implying that
the members of the proletariat are, in fact, still
proletariats after the "socialist" revolution and so still
subject to wage slavery by capitalists.
Clearly, then, Marx and Engels considered the seizing of
state power as the key event and, later, the expropriation
of the expropriators would occur. Thus the economic power of
the capitalists would remain, with the proletariat utilising
political power to combat and reduce it. Anarchists argue that
if the proletariat did not hold economic power, its political
power would at best be insecure and would in fact degenerate.
Would the capitalists just sit and wait while their economic
power was gradually eliminated by political action? And what
of the proletariat during this period? Will they patiently
obey their bosses, continue to be oppressed and exploited
by them until such time as the end of their "social slavery"
has been worked out (and by whom)? As the experience of the
Russian Revolution showed, Marx and Engels position proved to
be untenable.
As we discuss in more detail in
section H.4, the Russian
workers initially followed Bakunin's path. After the
February revolution, they organised factory committees
and raised the idea and practice of workers self-management
of production. The Russian anarchists supported this movement
whole-heartedly, arguing that it should be pushed as far as
it would go. In contrast, Lenin argued for "workers' control
over the capitalists." [Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?,
p. 52] This was, unsurprisingly, the policy applied immediately
after the Bolshevik seizure of power. However, as one Leninist
writer admits, "[t]wo overwhelmingly powerful forces obliged
the Bolsheviks to abandon this 'reformist' course." One was
the start of the civil war, the other "was the fact that the
capitalists used their remaining power to make the system
unworkable. At the end of 1917 the All Russian Congress of
employers declared that those 'factories in which the control
is exercised by means of active interference in the administration
will be closed.' The workers' natural response to the wave of
lockouts which followed was to demand that their [sic!] state
nationalise the factories." [John Rees, "In Defence of
October", pp. 3-82, International Socialism, no. 52,
p. 42] By July 1918, only one-fifth of nationalised firms
had been nationalised by the central government (which,
incidentally, shows the unresponsiveness of centralised
power). Clearly, the idea that a social revolution can come
after a political was shown to be a failure -- the capitalist
class used its powers to disrupt the economic life of Russia.
Faced with the predictable opposition by capitalists to their
system of "control" the Bolsheviks nationalised the means of
production. Sadly, within the nationalised workplace the
situation of the worker remained essentially unchanged.
Lenin had been arguing for one-man management (appointed
from above and armed with "dictatorial" powers) since late
April 1918. This aimed at replacing the capitalist managers
with state managers, not workers self-management:
Bakunin's fear of what would happen if a political revolution
preceded a social one came true. The working class continued
to be exploited and oppressed as before, first by the
bourgeoisie and then by the new bourgeoisie of state appointed
managers armed with all the powers of the old ones (plus a few
more). Russia confirmed Bakunin's analysis that a revolution
must immediately combine political and economic goals in order
for it to be successful.
Which brings us to the "dictatorship of the proletariat." While
many Marxists basically use this term to describe the defence
of the revolution and so argue that anarchists do not see the
need to defend a revolution, this is incorrect. Anarchists
from Bakunin onwards have argued that a revolution would have
to defend itself from counter revolution and yet we reject the
term totally (see sections
H.2.1,
I.5.14 and
J.7.6 for a
refutation of claims that anarchists think a revolution does
not need defending). So why did Bakunin reject the concept? To
understand why, we must provide some historical context --
namely the fact that at the time he was writing the
proletariat was a minority of the working masses.
Simply put, anarchists in the nineteenth century rejected
the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply
because the proletariat was a minority of working
people at the time. As such, to argue for a dictatorship
of the proletariat meant to argue for the dictatorship
of a minority class, a class which excluded the majority
of toiling people. When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist
Manifesto, for example, over 80% of the population of France
and Germany were peasants or artisans -- what Marx termed
the "petit-bourgeois" and his followers termed the
"petty-bourgeois." This fact meant that the comment in
the Communist Manifesto that the "proletarian movement
is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense
majority, in the interests of the immense majority" was
simply not true. Rather, for Marx's life-time (and for
many decades afterwards) the proletarian movement was
like "[a]ll previous movements," namely "movements of
minorities, or in the interests of minorities." [The
Marx-Engels Reader, p. 482]
Not that Marx and Engels were unaware of this. In the
Manifesto they note that "[i]n countries like France"
the peasants "constitute far more than half of the
population." In his famous 1875
work "Critique of the Gotha Program," Marx noted that
"the majority of the 'toiling people' in Germany
consists of peasants, and not of proletarians." He
stressed elsewhere around the same time that "the
peasant . . . forms a more of less considerable
majority . . . in the countries of the West European
continent." [Op. Cit., p. 493, p. 536 and p. 543]
Clearly, then, Marx and Engels vision of proletarian
revolution was one which involved a minority dictating
to the majority. As such, Bakunin rejected the concept.
He was simply pointing out the fact that a "dictatorship
of the proletariat," at the time, actually meant a
dictatorship by a minority of working people and
so a "revolution" which excluded the majority of
working people (i.e. artisans and peasants). As he
argued in 1873:
Bakunin continually stressed that the peasants "will
join cause with the city workers as soon as they
become convinced that the latter do not pretend to
impose their will or some political or social order
invented by the cities for the greater happiness of
the villages; they will join cause as soon as they
are assured that the industrial workers will not
take their lands away." As such, as noted above,
while the Marxists aimed for the "development and
organisation of the political power of the working
classes, and chiefly of the city proletariat,"
anarchists aimed for "the social (and therefore
anti-political) organisation and power of the
working masses of the cities and villages."
[The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 401
and p. 300]
For Bakunin, to advocate the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" in an environment where the vast majority
of working people were peasants would be a disaster.
It is only when we understand this social context that
we can understand Bakunin's opposition to Marx's
"dictatorship of the proletariat" -- it would be a
dictatorship of a minority class over the rest of
the working population (he took it as a truism
that the capitalist and landlord classes should
be expropriated and stopped from destroying the
revolution!). For Bakunin, when the industrial
working class was a minority, it was essential to
"[o]rganise the city proletariat in the name of
revolutionary Socialism, and in doing this, unite it
into one preparatory organisation together with the
peasantry. An uprising by the proletariat alone would
not be enough; with that we would have only a political
revolution which would necessarily produce a natural
and legitimate reaction on the part of the peasants,
and that reaction, or merely the indifference of the
peasants, would strangle the revolution of the cities."
[Op. Cit., p. 378]
This explains why the anarchists at the St. Imier
Congress argued that "every political state can
be nothing but organised domination for the benefit
of one class, to the detriment of the masses, and
that should the proletariat itself seize power, it
would in turn become a new dominating and exploiting
class." As the proletariat was a minority class at
the time, their concerns can be understood. For
anarchists then, and now, a social revolution has
to be truly popular and involve the majority of
the population in order to succeed. Unsurprisingly,
the congress stressed the role of the proletariat
in the struggle for socialism, arguing that "the
proletariat of all lands . . . must create the
solidarity of revolutionary action . . . independently
of and in opposition to all forms of bourgeois
politics." Moreover, the aim of the workers'
movement was "free organisations and federations
. . . created by the spontaneous action of the
proletariat itself, [that is, by] the trade
bodies and the autonomous communes." [as cited in
Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 438, p. 439 and p. 438]
Hence Bakunin's comment that "the designation of
the proletariat, the world of the workers, as
class rather than as mass" was
"deeply
antipathetic to us revolutionary anarchists who
unconditionally advocate full popular emancipation."
To do so, he argued, meant "[n]othing more or less than
a new aristocracy, that of the urban and industrial
workers, to the exclusion of the millions who make
up the rural proletariat and who . . . will in effect
become subjects of this great so-called popular
State." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,
pp. 253-4]
Again, the experiences of the Russian Revolution tend
to confirm Bakunin's worries. The Bolsheviks implemented
the dictatorship of the city over the countryside, with
disastrous results (see
section H.4 for more details).
One last point on this subject. While anarchists reject
the "dictatorship of the proletariat" we clearly do not
reject the key role the proletariat must play in any social
revolution (see section H.2.2
on why the Marxist assertion
anarchists reject class struggle is false). We only reject
the idea that the proletariat must dictate over other
working people like peasants and artisans. We do not reject
the need for working class people to defend a revolution,
nor the need for them to expropriate the capitalist class
nor for them to manage their own activities and so society.
Then there is the issue of whether, even if the proletariat
does seize political power, whether the whole proletariat
can actually exercise it. Bakunin raising the obvious
questions:
He repeated this argument in Statism and Anarchy, where
he asked "[w]hat does it mean, 'the proletariat raised to
a governing class?' Will the entire proletariat head the
government? The Germans number about 40 million. Will all
40 millions be members of the government? The entire nation
will rule, but no one will be ruled. Then there will be
no government, no state; but if there is a state, there
will also be those who are ruled, there will be slaves."
Bakunin argued that Marxism resolves this dilemma "in a
simple fashion. By popular government they mean government
of the people by a small number of representatives elected
by the people. So-called popular representatives and rulers
of the state elected by the entire nation on the basis
of universal suffrage -- the last word of the Marxists,
as well as the democratic school -- is a lie behind which
lies the despotism of a ruling minority is concealed, a
lie all the more dangerous in that it represents itself
as the expression of a sham popular will." [Statism and
Anarchy, p. 178]
So where does Marx stand on this question. Clearly, the
self-proclaimed followers of Marx support the idea of
"socialist" governments (indeed, many, including Lenin and
Trotsky, went so far as to argue that party dictatorship
was essential for the success of a revolution -- see
next
section). Marx, however, is less clear. He argued, in
reply to Bakunin's question if all Germans would be
members of the government, that "[c]ertainly, because the
thing starts with the self-government of the township."
However, he also commented that "[c]an it really be
that in a trade union, for example, the entire union forms
its executive committee," suggesting that there will be
a division of labour between those who govern and those who
obey in the Marxist system of socialism. [The Marx-Engels
Reader, p. 545 and p. 544] Elsewhere he talks about "a
socialist government . . . com[ing] into power in a country."
["Letter to F. Domela-Nieuwenhuis," Eugene Schulkind (ed.),
The Paris Commune of 1871: The View from the Left, p. 244]
As such, Bakunin's critique holds, as Marx and Engels clearly
saw the "dictatorship of the proletariat" involving a socialist
government having power. For Bakunin, like all anarchists,
if a political party is the government, then clearly they
are in power, not the mass of working people they claim
to represent. Anarchists 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" or "dictatorship of the proletariat"
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. This is because "all State rule,
all governments being by their very nature placed outside
the people, must necessarily seek to subject it to customs
and purposes entirely foreign to it. We therefore declare
ourselves to be foes . . . of all State organisations as
such, and believe that the people can be happy and free,
when, organised from below upwards by means of its own
autonomous and completely free associations, without the
supervision of any guardians, it will create its own life."
[Marxism, Freedom and the State, p. 63] Hence Bakunin's
constant arguments for decentralised, federal system of
workers councils organised from the bottom-up. Again,
the transformation of the Bolshevik government into a
dictatorship over the proletariat during the early
stages of the Russian Revolution supports Bakunin's
critique of Marxism.
Which brings us to the last issue, namely whether the revolution
will be decentralised or centralised. For Marx, the issue is
somewhat confused by his support for the Paris Commune and its
federalist programme (written, we must note, by a follower of
Proudhon). However, in 1850, Marx stood for extreme
centralisation of power. As he put it, the workers "must not
only strive for a single and indivisible German republic, but
also within this republic for the most determined centralisation
of power in the hands of the state authority." He argued that
in a nation like Germany "where there is so many relics of the
Middle Ages to be abolished" it "must under no circumstances
be permitted that every village, every town and every province
should put a new obstacle in the path of revolutionary activity,
which can proceed with full force from the centre." He stressed
that "[a]s in France in 1793 so today in Germany it is the
task of the really revolutionary party to carry through the
strictest centralisation." [The Marx-Engels Reader,
p. 509-10] Lenin followed this aspect of Marx's ideas,
arguing that "Marx was a centralist" and applying this
perspective both in the party and once in power [The
Essential Works of Lenin, p. 310]
Ironically, it is Engels note to the 1885 edition of Marx's work
which shows the fallacy of this position. As he put it, "this
passage is based on a misunderstanding" and it "is now . . .
[a] well known fact that throughout the whole revolution . . .
the whole administration of the departments, arrondissements
and communes consisted of authorities elected by the respective
constituents themselves, and that these authorities acted with
complete freedom . . . that precisely this provincial and
local self-government . . . became the most powerful lever
of the revolution." [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 510f] Marx's
original comments imply the imposition of freedom by the centre
on a population not desiring it (and in such a case, how could
the centre be representative of the majority in such a case?).
Moreover, how could a revolution be truly social if it was
not occurring in the grassroots across a country? Unsurprisingly,
local autonomy has played a key role in every real revolution.
As such, Bakunin has been proved right. Centralism has always
killed a revolution and, as he always argued, real socialism
can only be worked from below, by the people of every village,
town, and city. The problems facing the world or a revolution
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. As such,
this dove-tails into the question of whether the whole class
exercises power under the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
In a centralised system, obviously, power has to be exercised
by a few (as Marx's argument in 1850 showed). Centralism, by
its very nature excludes the possibility of extensive
participation in the decision making process. Moreover,
the decisions reached by such a body could not reflect
the real needs of society. In the words of Bakunin:
He stressed that "the revolution should be and should everywhere
remain independent of the central point, which must be its
expression and product -- not its source, guide and cause . . .
the awakening of all local passions and the awakening of
spontaneous life at all points, must be well developed in
order for the revolution to remain alive, real and powerful."
[Op. Cit., pp. 179-80] This, we must stress, does not imply
isolation. Bakunin always stressed the importance of federal
organisation to co-ordinate struggle and defence of the revolution.
As he put it, all revolutionary communes would need to federate
in order "to organise the necessary common services and
arrangements for production and exchange, to establish the
charter of equality, the basis of all liberty -- a charter
utterly negative in character, defining what has to be
abolished for ever rather than the positive forms of
local life which can be created only by the living
practice of each locality -- and to organise common
defence against the enemies of the Revolution." [Op. Cit.,
p. 179]
In short, anarchists should "not accept, even in the
process of revolutionary transition, either constituent
assemblies, provisional governments or so-called revolutionary
dictatorships; because we are convinced that revolution
is only sincere, honest and real in the hands of the masses,
and that when it is concentrated in those of a few ruling
individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes reaction."
Rather, 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." [Op. Cit.,
p. 237 and p. 172]
Given Marx's support for the federal ideas of the Paris Commune,
it can be argued that Marxism is not committed to a policy of
strict centralisation (although Lenin, of course, argued that
Marx was a firm supporter of centralisation). What is true
is, to quote Daniel Guerin, that Marx's comments on the Commune
differ "noticeably from Marx's writings of before and after
1871" while Bakunin's were "in fact quite consistent with
the lines he adopted in his earlier writings." [No Gods,
No Masters, vol. 1, p. 167] Indeed, as Bakunin himself
noted, while the Marxists "saw all their ideas upset by
the uprising" of the Commune, they "found themselves
compelled to take their hats off to it." [Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings, p. 261] This modification of ideas by
Marx was not limited just to federalism. Marx also praised
the commune's system of mandating recallable delegates, a
position which Bakunin had been arguing for a number of
years previously. In 1868, for example, he was talked about
a "Revolutionary Communal Council" composed of "delegates . . .
vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates."
[Op. Cit., pp. 170-1] As such, the Paris Commune was a
striking confirmation of Bakunin's ideas on many levels,
not Marx's (who adjusted his ideas to bring them in line
with Bakunin's!).
In summary, Bakunin argued that decentralisation of power was
essential for a real revolution that achieves more than changing
who the boss it. A free society could only be created and run
from below, by the active participation of the bulk of the
population. Centralisation would kill this participation and
so kill the revolution. Marx and Engels, on the other hand,
while sometimes supporting federalism and local self-government,
had a centralist streak in their politics which Bakunin thought
undermined the success of any revolution.
Since Bakunin, anarchists have deepen this critique of Marxism
and, with the experience of Bolshevism, argue that he predicted
key failures in Marx's ideas. Given that his followers, particularly
Lenin and Trotsky, have emphasised (although, in many ways, changed
them) the centralisation and "socialist government" aspects of
Marx's thoughts, anarchists argue that Bakunin's critique is
as relevant as ever. Real socialism can only come from below.
There are, of course, important similarities between anarchism and
Marxism. Both are socialists, oppose capitalism and the current
state, support and encourage working class organisation and action
and see class struggle as the means of creating a social revolution
which will transform society into a new one. However, the differences
between these socialist theories are equally important. In the
words of Errico Malatesta:
"Socialists want power . . . and once in power wish to impose
their programme on the people. . . Anarchists instead maintain,
that government cannot be other than harmful, and by its very
nature it defends either an existing privileged class or creates
a new one; and instead of inspiring to take the place of the
existing government anarchists seek to destroy every organism
which empowers some to impose their own ideas and interests on
others, for they want to free the way for development towards
better forms of human fellowship which will emerge from
experience, by everyone being free and, having, of course,
the economic means to make freedom possible as well as a
reality." [Life and Ideas, p. 142]
The other differences derive from this fundamental one.
So while there are numerous ways in which anarchists and
Marxists differ, their root lies in the question of power.
Socialists seek power (in the name of the working class
and usually hidden under rhetoric arguing that party and
class power are the same). Anarchists seek to destroy
hierarchical power in all its forms and ensure that
everyone is free to manage their own affairs (both
individually and collectively). From this comes the
differences on the nature of a revolution, the way the
working class movement such organise and the tactics it
should apply and so on. A short list of these differences
would include the question of the "dictatorship of the
proletariat", the standing of revolutionaries in elections,
centralisation versus federalism, the role and organisation
of revolutionaries, whether socialism can only come "from
below" or whether it is possible for it come "from below"
and "from above" and a host of others (i.e. some of the
differences we indicated in the
last section during our
discussion of Bakunin's critique of Marxism). Indeed, there
are so many it is difficult to address them all here. As
such, we can only concentrate on a few in this and the
following sections.
One of the key issues is on the issue of confusing party power
with popular power. The logic of the anarchist case is simple.
In any system of hierarchical and centralised power (for example,
in a state or governmental structure) then those at the top are
in charge (i.e. are in positions of power). It is not "the
people," nor "the proletariat," nor "the masses," it is those
who make up the government who have and exercise real power. As
Malatesta argued, government means "the delegation of power,
that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all
into the hands of a few" and "if . . . , as do the
authoritarians, one means government action when one talks
of social action, then this is still the resultant of
individual forces, but only of those individuals who form
the government." [Anarchy, p. 40 and p. 36] Therefore,
anarchists argue, the replacement of party power for working
class power is inevitable because of the nature of the state.
In the words of Murray Bookchin:
He continues:
This is why anarchists stress direct democracy (self-management)
in free federations of free associations. It is the only way to
ensure that power remains in the hands of the people and is not
turned into an alien power above them. Thus Marxist support for
statist forms of organisation will inevitably undermine the
liberatory nature of the revolution.
Thus the real meaning of a workers state is simply
that the party has the real power, not the workers. After
all, that is nature of a state. Marxist rhetoric tends to
hide this reality. As an example, we can point to Lenin's
comments in October, 1921. In an essay marking the fourth
anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution, Lenin stated
that the Soviet system "provides the maximum of democracy
for the workers and peasants; at the same time, it marks a
break with bourgeois democracy and the rise of a new,
epoch-making type of democracy, namely, proletarian
democracy, or the dictatorship of the proletariat."
["Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution,"
Collected Works, vol. 33, p. 55] Yet this was written
years after Lenin had argued that "[w]hen we are reproached
with having established a dictatorship of one party . . .
we say, 'Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is
what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position
. . .'" [Op. Cit., vol. 29, p. 535] And, of course, they
did not shift from that position! Indeed, Lenin's comments
came just a few months after all opposition parties and
factions within the Communist Party had been banned and
after the Kronstadt rebellion and a wave of strikes calling
for free soviet elections had been repressed. Clearly, the
term "proletarian democracy" had a drastically different
meaning to Lenin than to most people!
Indeed, the identification of party power and working class
power reaches its height (or, more correctly, depth) in the
works of Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin, for example, argued that
"the correct understanding of a Communist of his tasks"
lies in "correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the
vanguard of the proletariat can successfully seize power,
when it will be able during and after this seizure of power
to obtain support from sufficiently broad strata of the
working class and of the non-proletarian toiling masses,
and when, thereafter, it will be able to maintain,
consolidate, and extend its rule, educating, training and
attracting ever broader masses of the toilers." Note, the
vanguard (the party) seizes power, not the masses. Indeed,
he stressed that 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" and "[t]o go so far . . .
as to draw a contrast in general between the dictatorship
of the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders, is
ridiculously absurd and stupid." [Left-Wing Communism:
An Infantile Disorder, p. 35, p. 27 and p. 25]
Lenin stressed this idea numerous times. For example, in
1920 he argued that "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
. . . Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship
of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the essentials
of transitions from capitalism to communism . . . for
the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised
by a mass proletarian organisation." [Collected Works,
vol. 32, p. 21]
Trotsky agreed with this lesson and argued it to the end
of his life:
This point is reiterated in his essay, "Stalinism and
Bolshevism" (again, written in 1937) when he argued that:
How soviet democracy can exist within the context of
a party dictatorship is left to the imagination of the
reader! 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."
[Op. Cit., p. 16] Needless to say, he was just repeating
the same arguments he had made while in power during the
Russian Revolution (see
section H.4 for details). Nor
was he the only one. Zinoviev, another leading Bolshevik,
argued in 1920 along the same lines:
How these positions, clearly argued as inevitable for any
revolution, can be reconciled with workers' democracy,
power or freedom is not explained. As such, the idea that
Leninism (usually considered as mainstream Marxism) is
inherently democratic or a supporter of power to the people
is clearly flawed. The leading lights of Bolshevism argued
that the dictatorship of the proletariat could only be
achieved by the dictatorship of the party. Indeed, the
whole rationale for party dictatorship came from the
fundamental rationale for democracy, namely that any
government should reflect the changing opinions of the
masses. In the words of Trotsky:
This position has its roots in the uneven political
development within the working class (i.e. that the
working class contains numerous political perspectives
within it). As the party (according to Leninist theory)
contains the most advanced ideas (and, again according
to Leninist theory, the working class cannot reach
beyond a trade union consciousness by its own efforts),
the party must take power to ensure that the masses do not
make "mistakes" or "waver" ("vacillation") during a
revolution. From such a perspective to the position
of party dictatorship is not far (and a journey that
all the leading Bolsheviks, including Lenin and Trotsky,
we must note, did in fact take).
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?" [Anarchy, p. 53]
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." [No God, No Masters,
vol. 1, pp. 155-6]
Clearly, then, the question of state/party power is one dividing
anarchists and most Marxists. These arguments by leading
Bolsheviks confirm Bakunin's fear that the Marxists aimed
for "a tyranny of the minority over a majority in the name
of the people -- in the name of the stupidity of the many
and the superior wisdom of the few." [Marxism, Freedom
and the State, p. 63] Again, though, we must stress that
libertarian Marxists like the council communists agree with
anarchists on this subject and reject the whole idea that
dictatorship of a party equals the dictatorship of the
working class. As such, the Marxist tradition as a whole
does not confuse this issue, although the majority of it
does. We must stress that not all Marxists are Leninists.
A few (council communists, situationists, autonomists, and
so on) are far closer to anarchism. They also reject the idea
of party power/dictatorship, the use of elections, for direct
action, argue for the abolition of wage slavery by workers'
self-management of production and so on. They represent
the best in Marx's work and should not be lumped with the
followers of Bolshevism. Sadly, they are in the minority.
Finally, we should indicate other important areas of difference.
Some are summarised by Lenin in his work The State and
Revolution:
We will discuss each of these points in the next three
sections. Point one will be discussed in
section H.1.3,
the second in section H.1.4
and the third and final one in
section H.1.5.
As indicated at the end of the
last section, Lenin argued that
while Marxists aimed "at the complete abolition of the state"
they "recognise that this aim can only be achieved after
classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution"
while anarchists "want to abolish the state completely
overnight." This issue is usually summarised by Marxists
arguing that a new state is required to replace the destroyed
bourgeois one. This new state is called by Marxists "the
dictatorship of the proletariat" or a workers' state. Anarchists
reject this transitional state while Marxists embrace it. Indeed,
according to Lenin "a Marxist is one who extends the acceptance
of the class struggle to the acceptance of the dictatorship
of the proletariat." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 358
and p. 294]
So what does the "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually
mean? Generally, Marxists seem to imply that this term
simply means the defence of the revolution and so the
anarchist rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat
means the rejection of the defence of a revolution. Anarchists,
they argue, differ from Marxist-communists in that we reject
the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the
formerly oppressed use coercion to ensure that remnants of
the oppressing classes do not resurrect the old society. This
particular straw man was used by Lenin in State and Revolution
when he quoted Marx to suggest that anarchists would "lay down
their arms" after a successful revolution. Such a "laying down
of arms" would mean the "abolition of the state"
while defending the revolution by violence would mean
"giv[ing] the state a revolutionary and transitory form."
[Op. Cit., p. 315]
That such an argument can be made, never mind repeated, suggests
a lack of honesty. It assumes that the Marxist and Anarchist
definitions of "the state" are identical. They are not. As such,
it is pretty meaningless to argue, as Lenin did, that when
anarchists talk about abolishing the state they mean that they
will not defend a revolution. As Malatesta put it, some "seem
almost to believe that after having brought down government
and private property we would allow both to be quietly built
up again, because of respect for the freedom of those who
might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. A
truly curious way of interpreting our ideas." [Anarchy,
p. 41]
For anarchists the state, government, means "the delegation
of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty
of all into the hands of a few." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 40]
For Marxists,
the state is "an organ of class rule, an organ for the
oppression of one class by another." [Lenin, Op. Cit.,
p. 274] That these definitions are in conflict is clear and
unless this difference is made explicit, anarchist opposition
to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be clearly
understood.
Anarchists, of course, agree that the current state is the
means by which the bourgeois class enforces its rule over
society. In Bakunin's words, "the political state has no
other mission but to protect the exploitation of the people
by the economically privileged classes." [The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 221] Under capitalism, as Malatesta
succulently put, the state is "the bourgeoisie's servant and
gendarme." [Op. Cit., p. 20] The reason why the state is
marked by centralised power is due to its role as the protector
of (minority) class rule. As such, a state cannot be anything but
a defender of minority power as its centralised and hierarchical
structure is designed for that purpose. If the working class
really was running society, as Marxists claim they would be in
the "dictatorship of the proletariat," then it would not be
a state. As Bakunin argued, "[w]here all rule, there are no
more ruled, and there is no State." [Op. Cit., p. 223]
As such, the idea that anarchists, by rejecting the "dictatorship
of the proletariat," also reject defending a revolution is false.
We do not equate the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with the
need to defend a revolution or expropriating the capitalist
class, ending capitalism and building socialism. Anarchists
from Bakunin onwards have taken both of these necessities
for granted (also see sections
H.2.1,
I.5.14 and
J.7.6). As
he stressed, "the sole means of opposing the reactionary forces
of the state" was the "organising of the revolutionary force of
the people." This revolution involve "the free construction of
popular life in accordance with popular needs . . . from below
upward, by the people themselves . . . [in] a voluntary
alliance of agricultural and factory worker associations,
communes, provinces, and nations." [Statism and Anarchy,
p. 156 and p. 33]
As we discuss this particular Marxist straw man in
section H.2.1,
we will leave our comments at this. Clearly, then, anarchists do
not reject defending a revolution. We argue that the state must
be abolished "overnight" as any state is marked by hierarchical
power and can only empower the few at the expense of the many.
The state will not "wither away" as Marxists claim simply because
it excludes, by its very nature, the active participation of the
bulk of the population and ensures a new class division in society:
those in power (the party) and those subject to it (the working
class).
Georges Fontenis sums up anarchist concerns on this issue:
"Can it mean the exercise of political power by the victorious
working class? No, because the exercise of political power in
the recognised sense of the term can only take place through
the agency of an exclusive group practising a monopoly of
power, separating itself from the class and oppressing it.
And this is how the attempt to use a State apparatus can
reduce the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship
of the party over the masses.
"But if by dictatorship of the proletariat is understood
collective and direct exercise of 'political power', this
would mean the disappearance of 'political power' since its
distinctive characteristics are supremacy, exclusivity and
monopoly. It is no longer a question of exercising or seizing
political power, it is about doing away with it all together!
"If by dictatorship is meant the domination of the majority
by a minority, then it is not a question of giving power to
the proletariat but to a party, a distinct political group.
If by dictatorship is meant the domination of a minority by
the majority (domination by the victorious proletariat of
the remnants of a bourgeoisie that has been defeated as a
class) then the setting up of dictatorship means nothing
but the need for the majority to efficiently arrange for
its defence its own social Organisation.
[...]
"The terms 'domination', 'dictatorship' and 'state' are as
little appropriate as the expression 'taking power' for the
revolutionary act of the seizure of the factories by the workers.
We reject then as inaccurate and causes of confusion the
expressions 'dictatorship of the proletariat', 'taking political
power', 'workers state', 'socialist state' and 'proletarian state'."
[Manifesto of Libertarian Communism, pp. 22-3]
In summary, anarchists argue that the state has to be abolished
"overnight" simply because a state is marked by hierarchical
power and the exclusion of the bulk of the population from
the decision making process. It cannot be used to implement
socialism simply because it is not designed that way. To extend
and defend a revolution a state is not required. Indeed, it is
a hindrance:
"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." [Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy
and 'Scientific' Communism", in The Poverty of Statism, pp. 13-49,
Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 27]
For anarchists, the abolition of the state does not mean rejecting
the need to extend or defend a revolution (quite the reverse!). It
means rejecting a system of organisation designed by and for minorities
to ensure their rule. To create a state (even a "workers' state")
means to delegate power away from the working class and eliminate
their power in favour of party power. In place of a state anarchists'
argue for a free federation of workers' organisations as the means
of conducting a revolution (and the framework for its defence).
As we discuss in the
next section, anarchists see this federation of
workers' associations and communes (the framework of a free society)
as being based on the organisations working class people create in
their struggle against capitalism. These self-managed organisations,
by refusing to become part of a centralised state, will ensure the
success of a revolution.
Lenin's second claim is that anarchists, "while advocating the
destruction of the state machine, have absolutely no idea of
what the proletariat will put in its place" and compares
this to the Marxists who argue for a new state machine
"consisting of armed workers, after the type of the Commune."
[Essential Works of Lenin, p. 358] For anarchists, Lenin's
assertion simply shows his unfamiliarity with anarchist
literature and need not be taken seriously -- anyone
familiar will anarchist theory would simply laugh at such
comments. Sadly, most Marxists are not familiar with
that theory, so we need to explain two things. Firstly,
anarchists have very clear ideas on what to "replace"
the state with (namely a federation of communes based
on working class associations). Secondly, that this idea
is based on the idea of armed workers, inspired by the
Paris Commune (although predicted by Bakunin).
Moreover, for anarchists Lenin's comment seems somewhat
incredulous. As George Barrett puts it, in reply to the
question "if you abolish government, what will you put it
its place," this "seems to an Anarchist very much as if a
patient asked the doctor, 'If you take away my illness,
what will you give me in its place?' The Anarchist's
argument is that government fulfils no useful purpose
. . . It is the headquarters of the profit-makers, the
rent-takers, and of all those who take from but who do
not give to society. When this class is abolished by
the people so organising themselves to run the factories
and use the land for the benefit of their free communities,
i.e. for their own benefit, then the Government must also
be swept away, since its purpose will be gone. The only
thing then that will be put in the place of government
will be the free organisation of the workers. When
Tyranny is abolished, Liberty remains, just as when
disease is eradicated health remains." [Objections
to Anarchism]
However, Barrett's answer does contain the standard anarchist
position on what will be the basis of a revolutionary society,
namely that the "only thing then that will be put in the place
of government will be the free organisation of the workers." This
is a concise summary of anarchist theory and cannot be bettered.
This vision, as we discussed in
section I.2.3 in some detail,
can be found in the work of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and
a host of other anarchist thinkers. Since anarchists from Bakunin
onwards have stressed that a federation of workers' associations
would constitute the framework of a free society, to assert
otherwise is little more than a joke or a slander. To quote
Bakunin:
And:
Similar ideas can easily be found in the works of other anarchists.
While the actual names and specific details of these federations
of workers' associations may change (for example, the factory
committees and soviets in the Russian Revolution, the collectives
in Spain, the section assemblies in the French Revolution are
a few of them) the basic ideas are the same. Bakunin also pointed
to the means of defence, a workers' militia (the people armed,
as per the Paris Commune):
A major difference between anarchism and Marxism which Lenin
points to is, clearly, false. Anarchists are well aware of what
should "replace" the bourgeois state and have always been so.
The real difference is simply that anarchists say what they
mean while Lenin's "new" state did not, in fact, mean working
class power but rather party power. We discussed this issue in
more detail in
section H.1.2, so we will not do so here.
As for Lenin's comment that we have "absolutely no ideas" of how
the working class "will use its revolutionary power" suggests
more ignorance, as we have urged working people to expropriate
the expropriators, reorganise production under workers'
self-management and start to construct society from the bottom
upwards (a quick glance at Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread,
for example, would soon convince any reader of the inaccuracy
of Lenin's comment). This summary by the anarchist Jura Federation
(written in 1880) gives a flavour of anarchist ideas on this
subject:
"The following measures strike us as essential to the welfare
of the revolution, every bit as much as armed struggle against
its enemies:
"The insurgents must confiscate social capital, landed estates,
mines, housing, religious and public buildings, instruments of
labour, raw materials, gems and precious stones and manufactured
products:
"All political, administrative and judicial authorities are
to be abolished.
". . . What should the organisational measures of the revolution
be?
"Immediate and spontaneous establishment of trade bodies:
provisional assumption by those of . . . social capital . . .:
local federation of a trades bodies and labour organisation:
"Establishment of neighbourhood groups and federations of same . . .
[. . .]
"[T]he federation of all the revolutionary forces of the insurgent
Communes . . . Federation of Communes and organisation of the
masses, with an eye to the revolution's enduring until such
time as all reactionary activity has been completely eradicated.
[. . .]
"Once trade bodies have been have been established, the next step
is to organise local life. The organ of this life is to be the
federation of trades bodies and it is this local federation which
is to constitute the future Commune." [No Gods, No Masters,
vol. 1, pp. 246-7]
Clearly, anarchists do have some ideas on what the working class
will "replace" the state with and how it will use its
"revolutionary power"!
Similarly, Lenin's statement that "the anarchists even deny
that the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state
power, its revolutionary dictatorship" again distorts the
anarchist position. As we argued in
section H.1.2, our
objection to the "state power" of the proletariat is
precisely because it cannot, by its very nature as a
state, actually allow the working class to manage society
directly (and, of course, it automatically excludes other
sections of the working masses, such as the peasantry and
artisans). We argued that, in practice, it would simply
mean the dictatorship of a few party leaders. This position,
we must stress, was one Lenin himself was arguing in the
year after completing State and Revolution. Ironically,
the leading Bolsheviks (as we have seen in
section H.1.2)
confirmed the anarchist argument that the "dictatorship
of the proletariat" would, in fact, become a dictatorship
over the proletariat by the party.
Italian anarchist Camillo Berneri sums up the differences well:
Clearly, Lenin's assertions are little more than straw men.
Lastly, there is the question of Marxists demanding (in
the words of Lenin) "that the proletariat be prepared for
revolution by utilising the present state" while anarchists
"reject this." Today, of course, this has changed.
Libertarian Marxists, such as council communists, also
reject "utilising the present state" to train the
proletariat for revolution (i.e. for socialists to stand
for elections). For anarchists, the use of elections does
not "prepare" the working class for revolution (i.e. managing
their own affairs and society). Rather, it prepares them to
follow leaders and let others act for them. In the words of
Rudolf Rocker:
While electoral ("political") activity ensures that the masses
become accustomed to following leaders and letting them act
on their behalf, anarchists' support direct action as "the
best available means for preparing the masses to manage their
own personal and collective interests; and besides, anarchists
feel that even now the working people are fully capable of
handling their own political and administrative interests."
[Luigi Galleani, The End of Anarchism?, pp. 13-4]
Anarchists, therefore, argue that we need to reclaim the power
which has been concentrated into the hands of the state. That
is why we stress direct action. Direct action means action by
the people themselves, that is action directly taken by those
directly affected. Through direct action, the people dominate
their own struggles, it is they who conduct it, organise it,
manage it. They do not hand over to others their own acts and
task of self-liberation. That way, we become accustomed to
managing our own affairs, creating alternative, libertarian,
forms of social organisation which can become a force to
resist the state, win reforms and, ultimately, become the
framework of a free society. In other words, direct action
creates organs of self-activity (such as community assemblies,
factory committees, workers' councils, and so on) which, to
use Bakunin's words, are "creating not only the ideas but
also the facts of the future itself."
In other words, the idea that socialists standing for elections
somehow prepares working class people for revolution is simply
wrong. Utilising the state, standing in elections, only prepares
people for following leaders -- it does not encourage the
self-activity, self-organisation, direct action and mass
struggle required for a social revolution. Moreover, as we
noted in the
section H.1.1, use of elections
has a corrupting
effect on those who use it. The history of radicals using
elections has been a long one of betrayal and the transformation
of revolutionary parties into reformist ones (see
section J.2.6
for more discussion). Thus using the existing state ensures
that the division at the heart of existing society (namely a
few who govern and the many who obey) is reproduced in the
movements trying to abolish it. It boils down to handing effective
leadership to special people, to "leaders," just when the
situation requires working people to solve their own problems
and take matters into their own hands. Only the struggle for
freedom (or freedom itself) can be the school for freedom,
and by placing power into the hands of leaders, utilising
the existing state ensures that socialism is postponed rather
than prepared for.
Moreover, Marxist support for electioneering is somewhat at odds
with their claims of being in favour of collective, mass action.
There is nothing more isolated, atomised and individualistic than
voting. It is the act of one person in a box by themselves.
It is the total opposite of collective struggle. The individual
is alone before, during and after the act of voting. Indeed,
unlike direct action, which, by its very nature, throws up
new forms of organisation in order to manage and co-ordinate
the struggle, voting creates no alternative organs of working
class self-management. Nor can it as it is not based on nor
does it create collective action or organisation. It simply
empowers an individual (the elected representative) to act on
behalf of a collection of other individuals (the voters). Such
delegation will hinder collective organisation and action as
the voters expect their representative to act and fight for
them -- if they did not, they would not vote for them in the
first place!
Given that Marxists usually slander anarchists as "individualists"
the irony is delicious!
If we look at the Poll-Tax campaign in the UK in the late 1980s
and early 1990s, we can see what would happen to a mass movement
which utilised electioneering. The various left-wing parties,
particularly Militant (now the Socialist Party) spent a lot of
time and effort lobbying Labour Councillors not to implement
the tax (with no success). Let us assume they had succeeded
and the Labour Councillors had refused to implement the tax
(or "socialist" candidates had been elected to stop it). What
would have happened? Simply that there would not have been
a mass movement or mass organisation based on non-payment,
nor self-organised direct action to resist warrant sales,
nor community activism of any form. Rather, the campaign
would have consisted to supporting the councillors in their
actions, mass rallies in which the leaders would have
informed us of their activities on our behalf and, perhaps,
rallies and marches to protest any action the government had
inflicted on them. The leaders may have called for some form
of mass action but this action would not have come from below
and so not a product of working class self-organisation,
self-activity and self-reliance. Rather, it would have been
purely re-active and a case of follow the leader, without
the empowering and liberating aspects of taking action by
yourself, as a conscious and organised group. It would have
replaced the struggle of millions with the actions of a
handful of leaders.
Of course, even discussing this possibility indicates how
remote it is from reality. The Labour Councillors were not
going to act -- they were far too "practical" for that.
Years of working within the system, of using elections,
had taken their toll decades ago. Anarchists, of course,
saw the usefulness of picketing the council meetings, of
protesting against the Councillors and showing them a
small example of the power that existed to resist them
if they implemented the tax. As such, the picket would
have been an expression of direct action, as it was based
on showing the power of our direct action and class
organisations. Lobbying, however, was building illusions
in "leaders" acting for us to and based on pleading rather
than defiance. But, then again, Militant desired to replace
the current leaders with themselves and so would not object
to such tactics.
Unfortunately, the Socialists never really questioned why
they had to lobby the councillors in the first place --
if utilising the existing state was a valid radical
or revolutionary tactic, why has it always resulted in
a de-radicalising of those who use it? This would be
the inevitable results of any movement which "complements"
direct action with electioneering. The focus of the
movement will change from the base to the top, from
self-organisation and direct action from below to
passively supporting the leaders. This may not happen
instantly, but over time, just as the party degenerates
by working within the system, the mass movement will be
turned into an electoral machine for the party -- even
arguing against direct action in case it harms the
election chances of the leaders. Just as the trade
union leaders have done again and again.
All in all, the history of socialists actually using elections
has been a dismal failure. Rather than prepare the masses
for revolution, it has done the opposite. As we argue in
section J.2,
this is to be expected. That Lenin could still
argue along these lines even after the betrayal of social
democracy indicates a lack of desire to learn the lessons
of history.
Another key difference between anarchists and Marxists is on
how the movement against capitalism should organise in the
here and now. Anarchists argue that it should prefigure the
society we desire -- namely it should be self-managed,
decentralised, built and organised from the bottom-up in
a federal structure. This perspective can be seen from the
justly famous "Circular of the Sixteen":
This simply echoes Bakunin's argument that the "organisation
of the trade sections, their federation in the International,
and their representation by the Chambers of Labour, not only
create a great academy, in which the workers of the International,
combining theory and practice, can and must study economic science,
they also bear in themselves the living germs of the new social
order, which is to replace the bourgeois world. They are creating
not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself."
[quoted by Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 45] Anarchists apply
this insight to all organisations they take part in, stressing
that the only way we can create a self-managed society is by
self-managing our own struggles and organisations today. In this
way we turn our class organisations (indeed, the class struggle
itself) into practical and effective "schools of anarchism" in
which we learn to manage our own affairs without hierarchy and bosses.
Marxists reject this argument. Instead they stress the importance
of centralisation and consider the anarchist argument as utopian.
For effective struggle, strict centralisation is required as the
capitalist class and state is also centralised. In other words, to
fight for socialism there is a need to organise in a way which the
capitalists have utilised -- to fight fire with fire. Unfortunately
they forget to extinguish a fire you have to use water. Adding more
flame will only increase the combustion, not put it out!
Of course, Marx misrepresented the anarchist position. He argued
that the Paris Communards "would not have failed if they had
understood that the Commune was 'the embryo of the future human
society' and had cast away all discipline and all arms -- that is,
the things which must disappear when there are no more wars!"
[Ibid.] Needless to say this is simply a slander on the anarchist
position. Anarchists, as the Circular makes clear, recognise that
we cannot totally reflect the future and so the current movement
can only be "as near as possible to our ideal." Thus we have to
do things, such as fighting the bosses, rising in insurrection,
smashing the state or defending a revolution, which we would not
have to do in a socialist society. Such common sense, unfortunately,
is lacking in Marx who instead decides to utter nonsense for a
cheap polemical point. He never answered the basic point -- how do
people become able to manage society if they do not directly manage
their own organisations and struggles? How can a self-managed
society come about unless people practice it in the here and
now? Can people create a socialist society if they do not implement
its basic ideas in their current struggles and organisations?
Ironically enough, given his own and his followers claims of
his theory's proletarian core, it is Marx who was at odds with
the early labour movement, not Bakunin and the anarchists.
Historian Gwyn A. Williams notes in the early British labour
movement there were "to be no leaders" and the organisations
were "consciously modelled on the civil society they wished
to create." [Artisans and Sans-Culottes, p. 72] Lenin,
unsurprisingly, dismissed the fact that the British workers
"thought it was an indispensable sign of democracy for all
the members to do all the work of managing the unions" as
"primitive democracy" and "absurd." He also complained about
"how widespread is the 'primitive' conception of democracy
among the masses of the students and workers" in Russia.
[Essential Works of Lenin, pp. 162-3] Clearly, the anarchist
perspective reflects the ideas the workers' movement before it
degenerates into reformism and bureaucracy while Marxism reflects
it during this process of degeneration. Needless to say, the
revolutionary nature of the early union movement compared to
the reformism and bureaucratic control of the ones with
"full-time professional officers" clearly shows who was correct!
Related to this is the fact that Marxists (particularly Leninists)
favour centralisation while anarchists favour decentralisation
within a federal organisation. As such, anarchists do not think
that decentralisation implies isolation or narrow localism. We
have always stressed the importance of federalism to
co-ordinate decisions. Power would be decentralised, but
federalism ensures collective decisions and action. Under
centralised systems, anarchists argue, power is placed into
the hands of a few leaders. Rather than the real interests
and needs of the people being co-ordinated, centralism simply
means the imposition of the will of a handful of leaders,
who claim to "represent" the masses. Co-ordination, in other
words, is replaced by coercion in the centralised system and
the needs and interests of all are replaced by those of a few
leaders at the centre.
Similarly, anarchists and Marxists disagree on the nature of the
future economic and social system of socialism. While it is a
commonplace assumption that anarchists and Marxists seek the
same sort of society but disagree on the means, in actuality
there are substantial differences in their vision of a socialist
society. While both aim for a stateless communist society, the
actual structure of that society is different. Anarchists see it
as fundamentally decentralised and federal while Marxists tend
to envision it as fundamentally centralised. Moreover, Marxists
such as Lenin saw "socialism" as being compatible with one-man
management of production by state appointed "directors," armed
with "dictatorial" powers (see
section H.4 for further discussion).
As such, anarchists argue that the Bolshevik vision of "socialism"
is little more than state capitalism -- with the state replacing
the boss as exploiter and oppressor of the working class. As we
discuss this issue in sections
H.3.8 and
H.4, we will not do so
here.
By failing to understand the importance of applying a vision of
a free society to the current class struggle, Marxists help ensure
that society never is created. By copying bourgeois methods within
their "revolutionary" organisations (parties and unions) they ensure
bourgeois ends (inequality and oppression).
This question is often asked of people who critique Marxism,
particularly its Leninist form. Lenin's State and Revolution
is often considered his most democratic work and Leninists
are quick to point to it as proof that Lenin and those who
follow his ideas are not authoritarian. As such, its an
important question. So how do anarchists reply when people
point them to Lenin's work as evidence of the democratic
(even libertarian) nature of Marxism? Anarchists reply
in two ways.
Firstly, we argue many of the essential features of Lenin's
ideas are to be found in anarchist theory. These features
had been aspects of anarchism for decades before Lenin
put pen to paper. Bakunin, for example, talked about
mandated delegates from workplaces federating into
workers' councils as the framework of a (libertarian)
socialist society in the 1860s. In the same period he also
argued for popular militias to defend a revolution. Hence
Murray Bookchin:
That this is the case is hidden in Lenin's work as he
deliberately distorts anarchist ideas in it (see
sections
H.1.3 and
H.1.4 for examples). Therefore,
when Marxists ask whether anarchist have read Lenin's
State and Revolution we reply by arguing that most
of Lenin's ideas were first expressed by anarchists
(while Lenin hide this fact). All in all, Lenin's work just
strikes anarchists as little more than a re-hash of many
their own ideas but placed in a statist context which
totally and utterly undermines them in favour of party rule.
Secondly, anarchists argue that regardless of what Lenin
argued for in State and Revolution, he did not apply
those ideas in practice (indeed, he did the exact opposite).
Therefore, the question of whether we have read Lenin's work
simply drives how the ideological nature and theoretical
bankruptcy of Leninism in all its many forms. This is because
the person asking this kind of question is asking you to
evaluate their politics based on what they say rather than
on what they do, like any politician.
To use an analogy, what would you say to a politician who
has cut welfare spending by 50% and increased spending on
the military and who argues that this act is irrelevant and
that you should look at their manifesto which states that
they were going to do the opposite? Simply put, you would
consider this argument as laughable and them as liars as
you would evaluate them by their actions, not by what they
say. Yet supporters of Leninism cannot do this (and, ironically
enough, often quote Marx's words that it is impossible to
judge either parties or peoples by what they say or think
about themselves, you have to look at what they do).
Leninists, by urging you to read Lenin's "State and
Revolution" are asking you to evaluate them by what
their manifesto says and ignore what they did. Anarchists,
on the other hand, ask you to evaluate the Leninist manifesto
by comparing it to what they actually did in power. Such an
evaluation is the only means by which we can judge the
validity of Leninist claims and politics.
As we discuss the Russian Revolution in more depth in
section H.4,
we will not provide a summary of Lenin's
claims in his famous work State and Revolution and what
he did in practice here. However, we will say here that the
difference between reality and rhetoric was extremely large
and, therefore, it is a damning indictment of Bolshevism.
Simply put, if the State and Revolution is the manifesto
of Bolshevism, then not a single promise in that work was
kept by the Bolsheviks when they got into power. As such,
Lenin's work cannot be used to evaluate Bolshevism ideology
as Bolshevism paid no attention to it once it had taken state
power. While Lenin and his followers chant rhapsodies about
the Soviet State (this 'highest and most perfect system of
democracy") they quickly turned its democratic ideas into a
fairy-tale, and an ugly fairy-tale at that, by simply ignoring
it in favour of party power (and party dictatorship).
To state the obvious, to quote theory and not relate
it to the practice of those who claim to follow it is
a joke. It is little more than sophistry. If you look
at the actions of the Bolsheviks after the October
Russian Revolution you cannot help draw the conclusion that
Lenin's State and Revolution has nothing to do with Bolshevik
policy and presents a false image of what Leninists desire.
As such, we must present a comparison between rhetoric and
realty.
It will be objected in defence of Leninism that it is unfair
to hold Lenin responsible for the failure to apply his ideas
in practice. The terrible Civil War, in which Soviet Russia
was attacked by numerous armies, and the resulting economic
chaos meant that the objective circumstances made it impossible
to implement his democratic ideas. This argument contains
three flaws. Firstly, as we indicate in
section H.4, the
undemocratic policies of the Bolsheviks started before
the start of the Civil War (so suggesting that the hardships
of the Civil War were not to blame). Secondly, Lenin at no
time indicated in State and Revolution that it was
impossible or inapplicable to apply those ideas during
a revolution in Russia (quite the reverse!). Given that
Marxists, including Lenin, argue that a "dictatorship of the
proletariat" is required to defend the revolution against
capitalist resistance it seems incredulous to argue that Lenin's
major theoretical work on that regime was impossible to
apply in precisely the circumstances it was designed for.
Lastly, of course, Lenin himself in 1917 mocked those who
argued that revolution was out of the question because
"the circumstances are exceptionally complicated." He
noting that any revolution, "in its development, would
give rise to exceptionally complicated circumstances"
and that it was "the sharpest, most furious, desperate
class war and civil war. Not a single great revolution
in history has escaped civil war. No one who does not
live in a shell could imagine that civil war is conceivable
without exceptionally complicated circumstances. If there
were no exceptionally complicated circumstances there
would be no revolution." [Will the Bolsheviks Maintain
Power?, p. 80 and p. 81] As such, to blame difficult
objective circumstances for the failure of Bolshevism
to apply the ideas in State and Revolution means to
argue that those ideas are inappropriate for a revolution
(which, we must stress, is what the leading Bolsheviks
actually did end up arguing by their support for party
dictatorship).
All in all, discussing Lenin's State and Revolution without
indicating that the Bolsheviks failed to implement its ideas
(indeed, did the exact opposite) suggests a lack of honesty.
It also suggests that the libertarian ideas Lenin appropriated
in that work could not survive being grafted onto the statist
ideas of mainstream Marxism. As such, The State and Revolution
laid out the foundations and sketched out the essential features
of an alternative to Leninist ideas -- namely anarchism. Only the
pro-Leninist tradition has used Lenin's work, almost to quiet
their conscience, because Lenin, once in power, ignored it
totally. The Russian Revolution shows that a workers state,
as anarchists have long argued, means minority power, not
working class self-management of society. As such, Lenin's
work indicates the contradictory nature of Marxism -- while
claiming to support democratic/libertarian ideals they
promote structures (such as centralised states) which undermine
those values in favour of party rule. The lesson is clear, only
libertarian means can ensure libertarian ends and they have
to be applied consistently within libertarian structures to
work. To apply them to statist ones will simply fail.
No, far from it. Engels (in)famous essay "On Authority" is
often pointed to by Marxists of various schools as refuting
anarchism. Indeed, it is often considered the essential
Marxist work for this and is often trotted out (pun intended)
when anarchist influence is on the rise. However this is not
the case. In fact, his essay is both politically flawed and
misrepresentative of his foes opinions. As such, anarchists
do not think that Engels refuted anarchism in his essay.
Indeed, rather than refute anarchism, Engels' essay just
shows his ignorance of the ideas he was critiquing. This
ignorance essentially rests on the fact that the whole
concept of authority was defined and understood differently
by Bakunin and Engels meant that the latter's critique was
flawed. While Engels may have thought that they both were
speaking of the same thing, in fact they were not.
For Engels, all forms of group activity meant the subjection
of the individuals that make it up. As he puts it, "whoever
mentions combined action speaks of organisation" and so it
is not possible "to have organisation without authority,"
as authority means "the imposition of the will of another
upon ours . . . authority presupposes subordination."
[Marx-Engels Reader, p. 731 and p. 730] As such, he
considers the ideas of Bakunin to fly in the face of
common sense and so show that he does not know what he
is talking about. However, it is Engels who shows that
he does not know what he is talking about.
The first fallacy in Engels account is that anarchists
do not oppose all forms of authority. Bakunin was extremely
clear on this issue and differentiated between types of
authority, of which only certain kinds did he oppose. For
example, he asked the question "[d]oes it follow that I
reject all authority?" and answered quite clearly:
"No, far be it from me to entertain such a thought." He
acknowledged the difference between being an authority
-- an expert -- and being in authority, for example.
This meant that "[i]f I bow before the authority of the
specialists and declare myself ready to follow, to a
certain extent and so long as it may seem to me to be
necessary, their general indications and even their
directions, it is because their authority is imposed
upon me by no one . . . I bow before the authority of
specialists because it is imposed upon me by my own
reason." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 253]
Similarly, he argued that anarchists "recognise all natural
authority, and all influence of fact upon us, but none of
right; for all authority and all influence of right,
officially imposed upon us, immediately becomes a falsehood
and an oppression." He stressed that the "only great and
omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the
only one we respect, will be that of the collective and
public spirit of a society founded on equality and
solidarity and the mutual respect of all its members."
[Op. Cit., p. 241 and p. 255]
So while Bakunin and other anarchists, on occasion, did
argue that anarchists reject "all authority" they, as Carole
Pateman correctly notes, "tended to treat 'authority' as a
synonym for 'authoritarian,' and so have identified 'authority'
with hierarchical power structures, especially those of the
state. Nevertheless, their practical proposals and some of
their theoretical discussions present a different picture."
[The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 141] This can
be seen when Bakunin noted that "the principle of authority"
was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political
idea that the masses, always incapable of governing
themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent
yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another,
is imposed from above." [Marxism, Freedom and the State,
p. 33] Clearly, by the term "principle of authority" Bakunin
meant hierarchy rather than organisation and the need
to make agreements (what is now called self-management).
Therefore Bakunin did not oppose all authority but rather
a specific kind of authority, namely hierarchical authority.
This kind of authority placed power into the hands of a few.
For example, wage labour produced this kind of authority,
with a "meeting . . . between master and slave . . . the
worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time."
[The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187] The state
is also based hierarchical authority, with "those who
govern" (i.e. "those who frame the laws of the country as
well as those who exercise the executive power") are in an
"exceptional position diametrically opposed to . . . popular
aspirations" towards liberty. They end up "viewing society
from the high position in which they find themselves" and
so "[w]hoever says political power says domination" over
"a more or less considerable section of the population."
[Op. Cit., p. 218]
Thus hierarchical authority is top-down, centralised and
imposed. It is this kind of authority Bakunin had in mind
when he argued that anarchists "are in fact enemies of all
authority" and it will "corrupt those who exercise [it]
as much as those who are compelled to submit to [it]."
[Op. Cit., p. 249] In other words, "authority" was used
as shorthand for "hierarchy" (or "hierarchical authority"),
the imposition of decisions rather than agreement to abide
by the collective decisions you make with others when you
freely associate with them. In place of this kind of authority,
Bakunin proposed a "natural authority" based on the masses
"governing themselves." He did not object to the need for
individuals associating themselves into groups and
managing their own affairs, rather he opposed the idea
that co-operation necessitated hierarchy:
This kind of free association would be the expression of
liberty rather than (as in hierarchical structures) its
denial. Anarchists reject the idea of giving a minority
(a government) the power to make our decisions for us.
Rather, power should rest in the hands of all, not
concentrated in the hands of a few. Anarchism is based
on rejecting what Bakunin called "the authoritarian
conception of discipline" which "always signifies
despotism on the one hand and blind automatic
submission to authority on the other." In an anarchist
organisation "hierarchic order and advancement do not
exist" and there would be "voluntary and thoughtful
discipline" for "collective work or action."
This would be a new kind of discipline, one which is
"voluntary and intelligently understood" and
"necessary whenever a greater number of individuals
undertake any kind of collective work or action."
This is "simply the voluntary and considered
co-ordination of all individual efforts for a
common purpose . . In such a system, power, properly
speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the
collectivity and becomes the true expression of the
liberty of everyone, the faithful and sincere
realisation of the will of all . . . this is the
only true discipline, the discipline necessary for
the organisation of freedom." [Op. Cit., pp. 259-60]
Clearly Engels misunderstands the anarchist conception
of liberty. Rather than seeing it as essentially negative,
anarchists argue that liberty is expressed in two different,
but integrated, ways. Firstly, there is rebellion, the
expression of autonomy in the face of authority. This is
the negative aspect of it. Secondly, there is association,
the expression of autonomy by working with equals. This is
the positive aspect of it. As such, Engels concentrates on
the negative aspect of anarchist ideas, ignoring the positive,
and so paints a false picture of anarchism. Freedom, as
Bakunin argued, is a product of connection, not of isolation.
How a group organises itself determines whether it is
authoritarian or libertarian. If the individuals who take
part in a group manage the affairs of that group (including
what kinds of decisions can be delegated) then that group is
based on liberty. If that power is left to a few individuals
(whether elected or not) then that group is structured in an
authoritarian manner. This can be seen from Bakunin's
argument that power must be "diffused" into the collective
in an anarchist society. Clearly, anarchists do not
reject the need for organisation nor the need to make
and abide by collective decisions. Rather, the question
is how these decisions are to be made -- are they to be
made from below, by those affected by them, or from above,
imposed by a few people in authority.
Only a sophist would confuse hierarchical power with the
power of people managing their own affairs. It is an
improper use of words to denote equally as "authority"
two such opposed concepts as individuals subjected to
the autocratic power of a boss and the voluntary
co-operation of conscious individuals working together
as equals. The lifeless obedience of a governed mass
cannot be compared to the organised co-operation of
free individuals, yet this is what Engels does. The
former is marked by hierarchical power and the turning
of the subjected into automations performing mechanical
movements without will and thought. The latter is
marked by participation, discussion and agreement.
Both are, of course, based on co-operation but to
argue that latter restricts liberty as much as the
former simply confuses co-operation with coercion.
It also indicates a distinctly liberal conception
of liberty, seeing it restricted by association with
others rather than seeing association as an expression
of liberty. As Malatesta argued:
"Now, it seems to us that organisation, that is to say,
association for a specific purpose and with the structure
and means required to attain it, is a necessary aspect of
social life. A man in isolation cannot even live the life
of a beast . . . Having therefore to join with other
humans . . . he must submit to the will of others (be
enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority)
or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests
of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can
escape from this necessity." [Life and Ideas, pp. 84-5]
Therefore, organisation is "only the practice of co-operation
and solidarity" and is a "natural and necessary condition
of social life." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 83] Clearly, the
question is not whether we organise, but how do we do so.
This means that, for anarchists, Engels confused vastly
different concepts: "Co-ordination is dutifully confused
with command, organisation with hierarchy, agreement with
domination -- indeed, 'imperious' domination." [Murray
Bookchin, Towards an Ecological Society, pp. 126-7]
Socialism will only exist when the discipline currently
enforced by the stick in the hand of the boss is replaced
by the conscious self-discipline of free individuals. It
is not by changing who holds the stick (from a capitalist
to a "socialist" boss) that socialism will be created.
It is only by the breaking up and uprooting of this slavish
spirit of discipline, and its replacement by self-management,
that working people will create a new discipline what will
be the basis of socialism (the voluntary self-discipline
Bakunin talked about).
Clearly, then, Engels did not refute anarchism by his essay.
Rather, he refuted a straw man of his own creation. The
question was never one of whether certain tasks need
co-operation, co-ordination, joint activity and agreement.
It was, in fact, a question of how that is achieved. As
such, Engels diatribe misses the point. Instead of addressing
the actual politics of anarchism or their actual use of the
word "authority," he rather addresses a series of logical
deductions he draws from a false assumption regarding those
politics. Engels essay shows the bedlam that can be created
when a remorseless logician deduces away from an incorrect
starting assumption.
For collective activity anarchists recognise the need to make
and stick by agreements. Collective activity of course needs
collective decision making and organisation. In so far as
Engels had a point to his diatribe (namely that group efforts
meant co-operating with others), Bakunin (like any anarchist)
would have agreed. The question was how are these decisions
to be made, not whether they should be or not. Ultimately,
Engels confused agreement with hierarchy. Anarchists do not.
L’argument d’Engels dans son ouvrage "On Authority" (Sur l’Autorité) peut se résumer à cela : Toute forme d’activité collective signifie la coopération avec d’autres et ceci implique que certains se soumettre à d’autres, ou au moins au groupe. En tant que telle, l’autorité ne peut pas être supprimée, car l’organisation signifie que la « volonté d’un individu devra toujours se soumettre, ce qui signifie que les problèmes seront réglées de façon autoritaire ». [Op. Cit., p. 731]
En tant que tel, l’argument d’Engels est trop puissant. Comme chaque forme d’activité commune comporte l’accord et la « subordination », alors la vie elle-même est « autoritaire ». La seule personne libre, selon la logique d’Engels, serait l’hermite. Comme George Barrett le disait :
« Pour donner à la vie tout son sens, nous devons coopérer, et pour coopérer nous devons passer des accords avec nos camarades. Mais supposer que de tels accords signifient une limitation de la liberté est sûrement une absurdité ; au contraire, ils sont l’exercice même de notre liberté. »
« Si nous inventions un dogme selon lequel faire des accords est dommageable pour la liberté, alors immédiatement la liberté devient tyrannique, parce que elle empêche des hommes [ et des femmes ] de prendre les plaisirs quoitidiens les plus ordinaires. Par exemple, je ne puis pas faire une promenade avec mon ami parce que c’est contre le principe de la liberté que de devoir accepter d’être à un certain endroit à un certain moment pour le rencontrer. Je ne puis pas étendre mon pouvoir au-delà de ma propre personne, parce que faire ainsi implique de coopérer avec quelqu’un d’autre, et la coopération implique un accord, et c’est contre la liberté. On voit immédiatement que cet argument est absurde. Je ne limite pas ma liberté, mais l’exerce simplement, quand je suis d’accord avec mon ami pour faire une promenade. »
« Si, d’autre part, je décide du haut de ma connaissance supérieure qu’il est bon que mon ami fasse de l’exercice, et donc que j’essaye de le contraindre à faire une promenade, je commence à limiter sa liberté. C’est la différence entre l’accord libre et le gouvernement. » [Objections to Anarchism]
Ainsi, si nous prenions l’argument d’Engels sérieusement, alors nous devrions conclure que la vie rend la liberté impossible ! Après tout, en faisant n’importe quelle activité commune vous vous « subordonnez » vous-même à d’autres et, ironiquement, exercer votre liberté en prenant des décisions et en s’associant à d’autres deviendrait un déni de la liberté. Il est clairement que l’argument d’Engels oublie quelque chose !
Peut-être ce paradoxe peut-il être expliqué une fois que nous comprenons qu’Engels emploie une vue précisément libérale de la liberté — c.-à -d. absence de contraintes. Les anarchistes rejettent cette définition. Nous voyons la liberté en tant qu’holistique — absence de contraintes et liberté de faire. Cela signifie que la liberté est maintenue par le genre de rapports que nous formons avec les autres, et non par l’isolement. La liberté est niée quand nous formons des rapports hiérarchiques avec d’autres, pas nécessairement quand nous nous associons à d’autres. Combiner avec d’autres individus est une expression de la liberté individuelle, et pas le contraire ! Nous nous rendons compte que la liberté soit impossible à l’extérieur des associations. Dans une association, l’« autonomie » absolue ne peut pas exister, mais un tel concept d’« autonomie » limiterait la liberté à un tel degré qu’elle serait ainsi en situation de s’auto-détruire au point de ridiculiser le concept de l’autonomie et aucune personne raisonnable ne la chercherait.
Clairement, la « critique » d’Engels cache plus qu’elle n’explique. Oui, la coopération et la coercition toutes les deux font partie des rapports entre les personnes travaillant conjointement ensemble, mais elles ne sont pas équivalentes. Tandis que Bakunin identifiait cette différence fondamentale et essayait, peut-être incomplètement, de les différencier (en réfutant « le principe de l’autorité ») et de baser sa politique sur la différence, Engels obscurcit les différences et assombrit une eau claire en confondant les deux concepts, radicalement différents, dans le mot « autorité ».
N’importe quelle organisation ou groupe est basée sur la coopération et la coordination (le principe de l’« autorité » d’Engels). Comment cette coopération est réalisée dépend du type de l’organisation en question et cela, à son tour, dépend des relations sociales internes à cette organisation. Ce sont ces rapports sociaux qui déterminent si une organisation est autoritaire ou libertaire, et non la nécessité universelle de faire et accepter des accords. Engels confond simplement obéissance et accord, coercition avec coopération, organisation avec l’autorité, réalité objective avec despotisme.
En tant que tel, plutôt que de voir l’organisation en tant que limitrice de liberté, les anarchistes prétendent que c’est le genre d’association que nous faisons qui est important. Nous pouvons former des rapports avec d’autres qui sont basés sur l’égalité, pas sur la subordination. Comme exemple, nous nous verrons les différences entre le mariage et l’amour libre (voir la prochaine section). Une fois qu’on l’identifie que des décisions peuvent être prises sur la base des accords entre personnes égales, l’essai d’Engels peut être vu pour ce qu’est il est — une diatribe gratuite, imprécise, et gravement entachée de nullité.
Engels, let us not forget, argues, in effect, any activities which
"replace isolated action by combined action of individuals"
means "the imposition of the will of another upon ours" and so
"the will of the single individual will have to subordinate itself,
which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian manner."
This, for Engels, means that "authority" has not "disappeared"
under anarchism but rather it has only "changed its form."
[Op. Cit., pp. 730-1]
However, to say that authority just changes its form misses
the qualitative differences between authoritarian and
libertarian organisation. Precisely the differences which
Bakunin and other anarchists tried to stress by calling
themselves anti-authoritarians and being against the
"principle of authority." By arguing that all forms of
association are necessarily "authoritarian," Engels is
impoverishing the liberatory potential of socialism. He
ensures that the key question of liberty within our
associations is hidden behind a mass of sophistry.
As an example, look at the difference between marriage
and free love. Both forms necessitate two individuals
living together, sharing the same home, organising their
lives together. The same situation and the same commitments.
But do both imply the same social relationships? Are they
both "authoritarian"?
Traditionally, the marriage vow is based on the wife promising
to obey the husband. Her role is simply that of obedience (in
theory, at least). As Carole Pateman argues, "[u]ntil late
into the nineteenth century the legal and civil position of
a wife resembled that of a slave" and, in theory, "became the
property of her husband and stood to him as a slave/servant
to a master." [The Sexual Contract, p. 119 and pp. 130-1]
As such, an obvious social relationship exists -- an
authoritarian one in which the man has power over the woman.
We have a relationship based on domination and subordination.
In free love, the couple are equals. They decide their own affairs,
together. The decisions they reach are agreed between them and no
domination takes place (unless you think making an agreement
equals domination or subordination). They both agree to the
decisions they reach, based on mutual respect and give and take.
Subordination to individuals does not meaningfully exist (at
best, it could be argued that both parties are "dominated" by
their decisions, hardly a meaningful use of the word). Instead
of subordination, there is free agreement.
Both types of organisation apply to the same activities -- a
couple living together. Has "authority" just changed its form
as Engels argued? Of course not. There is a substantial
difference between the two. The former is authoritarian. One
part of the organisation dictates to the other. The latter is
libertarian as neither dominates (or they, as a couple,
"dominate" each other as individuals -- surely an abuse
of the language, we hope you agree!). Each part of the
organisation agrees to the decision. Do all these differences
just mean that we have changed name of "authority" or has
authority been abolished and liberty created? This was
the aim of Bakunin's terminology, namely to draw attention
to the qualitative change that has occurred in the social
relationships generated by the association of individuals
when organised in an anarchist way.
As such, Engels is confusing two radically different means
of decision making by arguing both involve subordination and
authority. The difference is clear: the former involves the
domination of an individual over another while the second
involves the "subordination" of individuals to the decisions
and agreements they make. The first is authority, the second
is liberty.
Therefore, the example of free love indicates that, for
anarchists, Engels arguments are simply pedantic sophistry.
It goes without saying that organisation involves co-operation
and that, by necessity, means that individuals come to agreements
between themselves to work together. The question is how do
they do that, not whether they do so or not. As such, Engels'
arguments confuse agreement with hierarchy, co-operation with
coercion. Simply put, the way people conduct joint activity
determines whether an organisation is libertarian or authoritarian.
That was why anarchists called themselves anti-authoritarians,
to draw attention to the different ways of organising collective
work.
Dans sa campagne contre les idées anti-autoritaires lors de la première Internationale, Engels demande dans une lettre écrite en janvier 1872 « Comment feraient ces personnes [les anarchistes] pour diriger une usine, mettre en oeuvre un service de chemin de fer ou piloter un bateau sans avoir en fin de compte quelqu’un qui prendra la décision, sans organisme de direction. » [The Marx-Engels, p. 729 ]
On peut, naturellement, se demander si Engels était totalement ignorant des idées de Bakunin et de ses nombreux commentaires soutenant les cooperatives et les associations d’ouvriers comme des moyens par lesquels les ouvriers « s’organiseraient et conduiraient l’économie sans anges gardien, sans l’état ou leurs anciens employeurs. » Bien sur, Bakunin « était convaincu que le mouvement coopératif s’épanouirait et atteindrait sa pleine capacité seulement dans une société où la terre, les instruments de la production, et la propriété héréditaire seront possédés et à disposition des ouvriers eux-mêmes : par leurs fédérations librement organisées d’ouvriers agricoles et industriels. » [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 399 and p. 400] Ce qui signifie que Bakunin, comme tous les anarchistes, se rendait bien compte de la façon dont une usine ou tout autre lieu de travail serait organisée :
« Seul le travail d’associés, c.-à -d., de travailleurs organisés sur les principes de la réciprocité et de la coopération, est adapté à la tâche du maintien ... de la société civilisée. » [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 341]
En octobre de la même année, Engels a finalement « soumis des arguments comme ceux-ci aux plus fanatiques des anti-authoritaires » (selon ses propres termes) qui ont répondu que pour diriger une usine, un service de chemin de fer ou un bateau, cela exigeait de l’organisation « ... mais ici ce n’était pas de l’autorité que nous conférons aux délégués, mais une mission de confiance » Engels commenta la chose en disant que les anarchistes « pensent que quand ils ont changé les noms des choses ils ont changé les choses elles-même. » Il pense, donc, que l’autorité « ... aurait seulement changé de forme » plutôt que d’être supprimée sous l’anarchisme car « celui qui mentionne l’action combinée parle d’organisation » et qu’il n’est pas possible « d’avoir l’organisation sans l’autorité. » [Op. Cit., p. 732 and p. 731]
Cependant, Engels confond simplement deux choses différentes, l’autorité et l’accord. Faire un accord avec une autre personne est un exercice de votre liberté, et non sa restriction. Comme Malatesta l’a expliqué, « les avantages que l’association et la division du travail conséquente offrent » signifient que l’humanité « a évolué vers plus de solidarité. » Cependant, dans une société organisée en classes « les avantages de l’association, le bien que l’homme pouvait retirer de l’appui de ses compagnons » a été détourné au profit de quelques uns, qui ont profité des « avantages de la coopération en soumettant d’autres hommes [ à leur autorité ] au lieu de se joindre à eux. » Cette opression se faisait toujours sur la base « d’association et de coopération, sans lesquelles aucune vie humaine n’est possible ; mais c’était une manière de coopérer imposée et commandée par quelques uns pour leur seul interêt. » [Anarchy, p. 28] Les anarchistes cherchent à organiser des associations pour éliminer la domination. Ceci serait fait par des ouvriers s’organisant collectivement pour prendre leurs propres décisions au sujet de leur travail (l’auto-gestion des ouvriers, pour reprendre la terminologie moderne).
En tant que tels, les ouvriers organiseraient leurs tâches mais ceci ne rendrai pas nécessaires les mêmes rapports sociaux autoritaires qui existent sous le capitalisme :
« Naturellement dans chaque grande entreprise collective, une division de travail, gestion technique, administration, etc., est nécessaire. Mais les autoritaires jouent maladroitement sur les mots pour produire une justification à un gouvernement hors du besoin très réel d’organisation du travail. Le gouvernement ... est l’ensemble des individus qui ont le droit et les moyens, ou s’en sont emparé, de faire des lois et d’obliger les gens à obéir ; l’administrateur, l’ingénieur, etc., sont des gens, au contraire, qui sont nommés ou assument la responsabilité de mener à bien un travail particulier et qui agissent ainsi. Le gouvernement signifie la délégation de compétences, c’est l’abdication de l’initiative et de la souveraineté de tous dans les mains de quelques-uns ; l’administration signifie la délégation du travail, c’est-à -dire des tâches données et reçues, des échanges libres de services basés sur l’accord libre ... Ne laissez pas faire la confusion entre la fonction du gouvernement et celle de l’administration, parce qu’elles sont essentiellement différentes, et si aujourd’hui les deux sont souvent confondus, c’est seulement en raison de privilèges économiques et politique. » [Anarchy, pp. 39-40]
Pour une tâche donnée, coopération et activité commune peuvent être exigés de par sa nature. Prenons, par exemple, un réseau ferroviaire. L’activité commune de nombreux ouvriers est exigée pour s’assurer qu’il fonctionne avec succès. Le conducteur dépend du travail des opérateurs de signaux et des gardes, par exemple, pour leur donner l’information nécessaire et essentielle pour le fonctionnement continu du réseau. Les passagers dépendent du conducteur et des autres ouvriers pour s’assurer leur voyage sera rapide et sur. En tant que tel, il y a un besoin objectif de coopérer mais ce besoin est compris et convenu par les personnes impliquées.
Si une activité spécifique a besoin de la coopération d’un certain nombre de personnes et peut seulement être réalisée si ces personnes travaillent ensemble en équipe et doivent, en conséquence, passer par des accords, alors c’est assurément un fait normal que l’individu peut seulement se rebeller en quittant l’association. De même, si une association considère sage d’élire un délégué dont les tâches ont été assignées par ce groupe alors, encore, c’est un fait normal sur lequel les individus en question ont été d’accord et ainsi n’a pas été imposé à l’individu par une volonté externe — l’individu a été convaincu de la nécessité de coopérer et agit ainsi.
Engels confond, donc, l’autorité du système actuel, organisée et imposée du haut vers le bas, avec l’auto-gestion exigée par une société libre. Il a essayé d’appliquer le même mot « autorité » à deux concepts fondamentalement différents. Cependant, nous détournons des mots et récoltons la déception quand nous nous appliquons le même terme à deux concepts totalement différents. Comme si l’organisation hiérarchique et autoritaire du travail sous le capitalisme, imposée par quelques-uns aux autres et basée sur l’absence de pensée et de volonté des subordonnés, pourrait être comparée à la coordination des activités communes par les individus libres ! Qu’y a-t-il en commun avec la structure autoritaire de l’usine capitaliste ou de l’armée et l’organisation libertaire exigée par des ouvriers pour contrôler leur lutte pour la liberté et, finalement, pour contrôler leur propre travail ? Engels détourne le langage en employant le même mot ("autorité") pour décrire deux choses aussi radicalement différentes que l’organisation hiérarchique du travail salarié et l’association et la coopération libre d’égaux de l’auto-gestion. Si une activité exige la coopération de nombreux individus alors, clairement, c’est un fait normal et il n’y a pas beaucoup que les individus impliqués puisse faire à ce sujet. Les anarchistes n’ont pas pour habitude de nier le bon sens. La question est simplement comment ces individus coordonnent leurs activités. Est-ce au moyen d’auto-gestion ou par la hiérarchie (autorité) ?
En tant que tels, les anarchistes ont toujours été clairs sur la façon dont l’industrie serait dirigée — par les ouvriers eux-mêmes dans leurs propres associations libres. De cette façon la domination du patron serait remplacée par des accords entre des gens égaux (voyez les sections I.3.1 et I.3.2 Comment les anarchistes pensent que les usines seraient dirigées dans une société libre).
Engels argued that large-scale industry (or, indeed, any
form of organisation) meant that "authority" was required.
He stated that factories should have "Lasciate ogni autonomia,
voi che entrate" ("Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy
behind") written above their doors. Indeed, that is the
basis of capitalism, with the wage worker being paid to
obey. This obedience, Engels argued, was necessary even
under socialism, as applying the "forces of nature" meant
"a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation."
This meant that "[w]anting to abolish authority in large-scale
industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself."
[Op. Cit., p. 731]
The best answer to Engels claims can be found in the class
struggle. Given that Engels was a capitalist (i.e. an owner
of a factory), he may have not been aware of the effectiveness
of "working to rule" when practised by workers. This basically
involves doing exactly what the boss tells you to do, regardless
of the consequences as regards efficiency, production and so on.
Quite simply, workers' refusing to practice autonomy can be an
extremely effective and powerful weapon in the class struggle.
This weapon has long been used by workers and advocated by
anarchists, syndicalists and wobblies. For example, the IWW
booklet How to fire your boss argues that "[w]orkers often
violate orders, resort to their own techniques of doing things,
and disregard lines of authority simply to meet the goals of
the company. There is often a tacit understanding, even by
the managers whose job it is to enforce the rules, that these
shortcuts must be taken in order to meet production quotas
on time." They argue, correctly, that "if each of these rules
and regulations were followed to the letter" then "[c]onfusion
would result -- production and morale would plummet. And best
of all, the workers can't get in trouble with the tactic
because they are, after all, 'just following the rules.'"
The British anarcho-syndicalists of the Direct Action Movement
agree and even quote an industrial expert on the situation:
Another weapon of workers' resistance is what has been called
"Working without enthusiasm" and is related to the "work to
rule." This tactic aims at "slowing production" in order to
win gains from management:
The practice of "working to rule" and
"working without enthusiasm"
shows how out of touch Engels (like any capitalist) is with
the realities of shop floor life. These forms of direct action
is extremely effective because the workers refuse to act
autonomously in industry, to work out the problems they face
during the working day themselves, and instead place all the
decisions on the authority required, according to Engels, to
run the factory. The factory itself quickly grinds to a halt.
What keeps it going is not the "imperious" will of authority,
but rather the autonomous activity of workers thinking and
acting for themselves to solve the numerous problems they face
during the working day.
As Cornelius Castoriadis argues:
"Under 'normal' conditions of exploitation, workers are
torn between the need to organise themselves in this way
in order to carry out their work -- otherwise there are
repercussions for them -- and their natural desire to
do their work, on the one hand, and, on the other, the
awareness that by doing so they only are serving the
boss's interests. Added to those conflicting concerns
are the continual efforts of factory's management
apparatus to 'direct' all aspects of the workers'
activity, which often results only in preventing them
from organising themselves." [Political and Social
Writings, vol. 2, p. 68]
Needless to say, co-operation and co-ordination is required in
any collective activity. Anarchists do not deny this fact of
nature, but the example Engels considered as irrefutable simply
shows the fallacy of his argument. If large-scale industry
was run along the lines argued by Engels, it would quickly
grind to halt.
Ironically, the example of Russia under Lenin and Trotsky
reinforces this fact. "Administrative centralisation" was
enforced on the railway workers which, in turn, "led
more to ignorance of distance and the inability to
respond properly to local circumstances . . . 'I have no
instructions' became all the more effective as a defensive
and self-protective rationalisation as party officials vested
with unilateral power insisted all their orders be strictly
obeyed. Cheka ruthlessness instilled fear, but repression . . .
only impaired the exercise of initiative that daily operations
required." [William G. Rosenberg, "The Social Background to
Tsektran," Party, State, and Society in the Russian Civil War,
Diane P. Koenker, William G. Rosenberg and Ronald Grigor
Suny (eds.), p. 369] Without the autonomy required to manage
local problems, the operation of the railways was seriously
harmed and, unsurprisingly, a few months after Trotsky
subjected to railway workers to the "militarisation of
labour" in September 1920, there was a "disastrous collapse
of the railway network in the winter of 1920-1." [Jonathan
Aves, Workers against Lenin, p. 102]
As the experience of workers' in struggle shows, it is the
abolition of autonomy which means the abolition of
large-scale industry, not its exercise. This can be seen
from various forms of direct action such as "working to rule"
as well as Trotsky's attempts to impose the "militarisation
of labour" on the Russian workers. The conscious decision by
workers to not exercise their autonomy brings industry
grinding to a halt and are effective tools in the class
struggle. As any worker know, it is only their ability to
make decisions autonomously that keeps industry going.
Rather than abolishing authority making large-scale industry
impossible, it is the abolishing of autonomy which quickly
achieves this. The issue is how do we organise industry so
that this essential autonomy is respected and co-operation
between workers achieved based on it. For anarchists, this
is done by self-managed workers associations in which
hierarchical authority is replaced by collective self-discipline
(as discussed in section H.1.8).
As noted in the
last section,
Engels argued that applying the
"forces of nature" meant "a veritable despotism independent
of all social organisation." This meant that "[w]anting to
abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to
wanting to abolish industry itself." [Op. Cit., p. 731]
For anarchists, Engels' comments ignore the reality of class
society in an important way. Modern ("large-scale") industry
has not developed neutrally or naturally, independently of all
social organisation as Engels claimed. Rather it has been
shaped by the class struggle. As we argued in
section D.10,
technology is a weapon in the class struggle. As Castoriadis
argues:
"The workers are by no means helpless in this struggle.
They constantly invent methods of self-defence. They
break the rules, while 'officially' keeping them. They
organise informally, maintain a collective solidarity
and discipline." [The Meaning of Socialism, pp. 9-10]
As such, one of the key aspects of the class struggle
is the conflict of workers against attempts by management
to eliminate their autonomy within the production process.
This struggle generates the machines which Engels claims
produce a "veritable despotism independent of all social
organisation." Regardless of what Engels implies, the way
industry has developed is not independent of class society
and its "despotism" has been engineered that way. For
example, it may be a fact of nature that ten people may be
required to operate a machine, but that machine is not
such a fact, it is a human invention and so can be changed.
Nor is it a fact of nature that work organisation should be
based on a manager dictating to the workers what to do --
rather it could be organised by the workers themselves,
using collective self-discipline to co-ordinate their
joint effort.
As one shop steward put it, workers are "not automatons.
We have eyes to see with, ears to hear with, and mouths
to talk." As David Noble comments, "[f]or management
. . . that was precisely the problem. Workers controlled
the machines, and through their unions had real authority
over the division of labour and job content." [Forces
of Production, p. 37] This autonomy was what managers
constantly struggled against and introduced technology
to combat. As such, Engels' notion that machinery was
"despotic" hide the nature of class society and the fact
that authority is a social relationship, a relationship
between people and not people and things. And, equally,
that different kinds of authority meant different kinds
of organisation and different social relationships to do
the collective tasks. It was precisely to draw attention
to this that anarchists called themselves anti-authoritarians.
Clearly, Engels is simply ignoring the actual relations
of authority within capitalist industry and, like the
capitalism he claims to oppose, is raising the needs of
the bosses to the plane of "natural fact." Indeed, is
this not the refrain of every boss or supporter of
capitalism? Right-libertarian guru Ludwig von Mises
spouted this kind of refrain when he argued that
"[t]he root of the syndicalist idea is to be seen
in the belief that entrepreneurs and capitalists are
irresponsible autocrats who are free to conduct their
affairs arbitrarily. Such a dictatorship must not be
tolerated . . . The fundamental error of this argument
is obvious [sic!]. The entrepreneurs and capitalists are
not irresponsible autocrats. They are unconditionally
subject to the sovereignty of the consumers. The market
is a consumers' democracy." [Human Action, p. 814] In
other words, it is not the bosses fault work is so hard
or that they dictate to the worker. No, of course not,
it is the despotism of the machine, of nature, of the
market, of the customer, anyone and anything but
the person with authority who is actually giving
the orders and punishing those who do not obey!
Needless to say, like Engels essay, von Mises' argument
is fundamentally flawed simply because the boss is not
just repeating the instructions of the market (assuming
that it is a "consumers' democracy," which it is not).
Rather, they give their own instructions based on
their own sovereignty over the workers. The workers could,
of course, manage their own affairs and meet the demands
of consumers directly. The "sovereignty" of the market
(just like the "despotism" of machines and joint action)
is independent of the social relationships which exist
within the workplace, but the social relationships themselves
are not predetermined by them. Thus the same workshop can
be organised in different ways. As such, the way industry
operates is dependent on social organisation. The workers
can manage their own affairs or be subjected to the rule
of a boss. To say that "authority" still exists simply
means to confuse agreement with obedience.
The importance of differentiating between types of
organisation and ways of making decisions can be seen from
the experience of the class struggle. During the Spanish
Revolution anarchists organised militias to fight the fascists.
One was lead by anarchist militant Durruti. His military adviser,
PĂ©rez Farras, a professional soldier, was concerned about the
application of libertarian principles to military organisation.
Durruti replied:
"I thought -- and what has happened confirms my belief -- that a
workingmen's militia cannot be led according to the same rules as
an army. I think that discipline, co-ordination and the fulfilment
of a plan are indispensable. But this idea can no longer be
understood in the terms of the world we have just destroyed.
We have new ideas. We think that solidarity among men must
awaken personal responsibility, which knows how to accept
discipline as an autonomous act.
"Necessity imposes a war on us, a struggle that differs from
many of those that we have carried on before. But the goal of our
struggle is always the triumph of the revolution. This means not
only victory over the enemy, but also a radical change in man.
For this change to occur, man must learn to live in freedom and
develop in himself his potentialities as a responsible individual.
The worker in the factory, using his tools and directing production,
is bringing about a change in himself. The fighter, like the
worker, uses his gun as a tool and his acts must lead to the
same goals as those of the worker.
"In the struggle he cannot act like a soldier under orders but
like a man who is conscious of what he is doing. I know it is not
easy to get such a result, but what one cannot get by reason, one
can never get through force. If our revolutionary army must be
maintained through fear, we will have changed nothing but the
colour of fear. It is only by freeing itself from fear that a
free society can be built." [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The
People Armed, p. 225]
Is it really convincing to argue that the individuals who made
up the militia are subject to the same social relationships as
those in a capitalist or Leninist army? The same, surely, goes
for workers associations and wage labour. Ultimately, the
flaw in Engels' argument can be best seen simply because he
thinks that the "automatic machinery of a big factory is much
more despotic than the small capitalist who employ workers ever
have been." [Op. Cit., p. 731] Authority and liberty become
detached from human beings, as if authoritarian social
relationships can exist independently of individuals! It
is a social relationship anarchists oppose, not an
abstraction.
As such, Engels' argument is applicable to any society
and to any task which requires joint effort. If, for
example, a table needs four people to move it then those
four people are subject to the "despotism" of gravity!
Under such "despotism" can we say its irrelevant whether
these four people are slaves to a master who wants the
table moved or whether they agree between themselves to
move the table and on the best way to do it? In both
cases the table movers are subject to the same "despotism"
of gravity, yet in the latter example they are not
subject to the despotism of other human beings they
are subject to in the former. Clearly, Engels is playing
with words!
The fallacy of Engels' basic argument can be seen from
this simple example. He essentially uses a liberal
concept of freedom (i.e. freedom exists prior to society
and is reduced within it) when attacking anarchism. Rather
than see freedom as a product of interaction, as Bakunin
did, Engels sees it as a product of isolation. Collective
activity is seen as a realm of necessity (to use Marx's
phrase) and not one of freedom. Indeed, machines and the
forces of nature are considered by Engels' as "despots"!
As if despotism was not a specific set of relationships
between humans. As Bookchin argues:
Given this, it can be argued that Engels' "On Authority"
had a significant impact in the degeneration of the
Russian Revolution into state capitalism. By deliberately
obscuring the differences between self-managed and authoritarian
organisation, he helped provide Bolshevism with ideological
justification for eliminating workers self-management in
production. After all, if self-management and hierarchical
management both involve the same "principle of authority,"
then it does not really matter how production is organised
and whether industry is managed by the workers or by
appointed managers (as Engels stressed, authority in industry
was independent of the social system and all forms of
organisation meant subordination). Murray Bookchin draws
the obvious conclusion from Engels' (and Marx's) position:
"Obviously, the factory conceived of as a 'realm of necessity'
[as opposed to a 'realm of freedom'] requires no need
for self-management." [Op. Cit., p. 126]
Hence the Bolsheviks need not to consider whether replacing
factory committees with appointed managers armed with
"dictatorial powers" would have any effect on the position
of workers in socialism (after all, the were subject to
subordination either way). Engels had used the modern
factory system of mass production as a direct analogy
to argue against the anarchist call for workers' councils,
for autonomy, for participation, for self-management.
Authority, hierarchy, and the need for submission and
domination is inevitable given the current mode of
production, both Engels and Lenin argued. Little wonder,
then, the worker become the serf of the state (see
section H.4 for more details).
In his own way, Engels
contributed to the degeneration of the Russian Revolution
by providing the rationale for the Bolsheviks disregard for
workers' self-management of production.
Simply put, Engels was wrong. The need to co-operate and
co-ordinate activity may be independent of social development,
but the nature of a society does impact on how this
co-operation is achieved. If it is achieved by hierarchical
means, then it is a class society. If it is achieved by
agreements between equals, then it is a socialist one. As
such, how industry operates is dependent on society it
is part of. An anarchist society would run industry based
on the free agreement of workers united in free associations
(see
section H.1.11).
This would necessitate making and
sticking to joint decisions but this co-ordination would be
between equals, not master and servant. By not recognising
this fact, Engels fatally undermined the cause of socialism.
H.1.1 What was Bakunin's critique of Marxism?
"On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power,
the [factory] committees leaders sought to bring their
model [of workers' self-management of the economy] 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." [Thomas F.
Remington, Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia, p. 38]
"If the proletariat is to be the ruling class . . .
then whom will it rule? There must be yet another
proletariat which will be subject to this new rule,
this new state. It may be the peasant rabble . . .
which, finding itself on a lower cultural level,
will probably be governed by the urban and factory
proletariat." [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 177-8]
"For, even from the standpoint of that urban proletariat
who are supposed to reap the sole reward of the seizure
of political power, surely it is obvious that this power
will never be anything but a sham? It is bound to be
impossible for a few thousand, let alone tens or hundreds
of thousands of men to wield that power effectively. It
will have to be exercised by proxy, which means entrusting
it to a group of men elected to represent and govern them,
which in turn will unfailingly return them to all the
deceit and subservience of representative or bourgeois
rule. After a brief flash of liberty or orgiastic
revolution, the citizens of the new State will wake up
slaves, puppets and victims of a new group of ambitious
men." [Op. Cit., pp. 254-5]
"What man, what group of individuals, no matter how great their
genius, would dare to think themselves able to embrace and
understand the plethora of interests, attitudes and activities
so various in every country, every province, locality and
profession." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 240]
H.1.2 What are the key differences between Anarchists and Marxists?
"The important, fundamental dissension [between anarchists and
Marxists] is [that] . . . [Marxist] socialists are authoritarians,
anarchists are libertarians.
"Anarchist critics of Marx pointed out with considerable effect
that any system of representation would become a statist interest
in its own right, one that at best would work against the interests
of the working classes (including the peasantry), and that at worst
would be a dictatorial power as vicious as the worst bourgeois state
machines. Indeed, with political power reinforced by economic power
in the form of a nationalised economy, a 'workers' republic' might
well prove to be a despotism (to use one of Bakunin's more favourite
terms) of unparalleled oppression."
"Republican institutions, however much they are intended to express
the interests of the workers, necessarily place policy-making in the
hands of deputies and categorically do not constitute a 'proletariat
organised as a ruling class.' If public policy, as distinguished from
administrative activities, is not made by the people mobilised into
assemblies and confederally co-ordinated by agents on a local, regional,
and national basis, then a democracy in the precise sense of the term
does not exist. The powers that people enjoy under such circumstances
can be usurped without difficulty. . . [I]f the people are to acquire
real power over their lives and society, they must establish -- and in
the past they have, for brief periods of time established -- well-ordered
institutions in which they themselves directly formulate the policies of
their communities and, in the case of their regions, elect confederal
functionaries, revocable and strictly controllable, who will execute
them. Only in this sense can a class, especially one committed to
the abolition of classes, be mobilised as a class to manage society."
[The Communist Manifesto: Insights and Problems]
"The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for
me not a thing that one can freely accept or reject: It 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 dictatorship of a party belongs to the
barbarian prehistory as does the state itself, but we can not
jump over this chapter, which can open (not at one stroke)
genuine human history. . . 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. The reason
for the revolution comes from the circumstance that
capitalism does not permit the material and the moral
development of the masses." [Writings 1936-37, pp. 513-4]
"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." [Socialist Review, no. 146, p. 18]
"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 of economic reconstruction, military organisation,
education, food supply -- all these questions, on which
the fate if the proletarian revolution depends absolutely,
are decided in Russia before all other matters and mostly
in the framework of the party organisations . . . Control
by the party over soviet organs, over the trade unions,
is the single durable guarantee that any measures taken
will serve not special interests, but the interests of
the entire proletariat." [quoted by Oskar Anweiler,
The Soviets, pp. 239-40]
"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." [The Moralists and Sycophants,
p. 59]
"The difference between the Marxists and the anarchists is
this: 1) the former, while aiming at the complete abolition
of the state, recognise that this aim can only be achieved
after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution,
as the result of the establishment of socialism which leads
to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish
the state completely overnight, failing to understand the
conditions under which the state can be abolished 2) the
former recognise that after the proletariat has conquered
political power it must utterly destroy the old state machine
and substitute it for it a new one consisting of the
organisation of armed workers, after the type of the
Commune. The latter, while advocating the destruction of
the state machine, have absolutely no idea of what the
proletariat will put in its place and how it will use
its revolutionary power; the anarchists even deny that
the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state
power, its revolutionary dictatorship; 3) the former demand
that the proletariat be prepared for revolution by utilising
the present state; the latter reject this." [Essential
Works of Lenin, p. 358]
H.1.3 Why do anarchists wish to abolish the state "overnight"?
"The formula 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has been used
to mean many different things. If for no other reason it
should be condemned as a cause of confusion. With Marx it
can just as easily mean the centralised dictatorship of
the party which claims to represent the proletariat as it
can the federalist conception of the Commune.
"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.
H.1.4 Do anarchists have "absolutely no idea" of what the proletariat will put in place of the state?
"the federative alliance of all working men's associations . . .
[will] constitute the Commune . . . [the] Communal Council [will
be] composed of . . . delegates . . . vested with plenary but
accountable and removable mandates. . . 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. . ." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-2]
"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." [Op. Cit., p. 206]
"While it [the revolution] will be carried out locally everywhere,
the revolution will of necessity take a federalist format.
Immediately after established government has been overthrown,
communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary
lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers
will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can
defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary for each of
them to radiate outwards, to raise all its neighbouring communes
in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defence."
[No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 142]
"The bourgeoisie's power over the popular masses springs from
economic privileges, political domination and the enshrining
of such privileges in the laws. So we must strike at the
wellsprings of bourgeois power, as well as its various
manifestations.
"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." ["Dictatorship of the Proletariat and State
Socialism", Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review, no. 4, p. 52]
H.1.5 Why do anarchists reject "utilising the present state"?
"Participation in the politics of the bourgeois States has not
brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to Socialism,
but thanks to this method, Socialism has almost been completely
crushed and condemned to insignificance. . . Participation in
parliamentary politics has affected the Socialist Labour movement
like an insidious poison. It destroyed the belief in the necessity
of constructive Socialist activity, and, worse of all, the impulse
to self-help, by inoculating people with the ruinous delusion
that salvation always comes from above." [Anarcho-Syndicalism,
p. 49]
H.1.6 Why do anarchists try to "build the new world in the shell of the old"?
"The future society should be nothing but a universalisation
of the organisation which the International will establish for
itself. We must therefore take care to bring this organisation
as near as possible to our ideal . . . How could one expect an
egalitarian and free society to grow out of an authoritarian
organisation? That is impossible. The International, embryo of
the future human society, must be, from now on, the faithful
image of our principles of liberty and federation." [quoted by
Marx, Fictitious Splits in the International]
H.1.7 Haven't you read Lenin's "State and Revolution"?
"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 organs of self-management for parliamentary
bodies. What is authentically Marxist in Lenin's pamphlet is
the demand for 'strict centralism,' the acceptance of a 'new'
bureaucracy, and the identification of soviets with a state."
[Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 213]
H.1.8 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in
his essay "On Authority"?
"Hence there results, for science as well as for industry,
the necessity of division and association of labour. I
take and I give -- such is human life. Each is an
authoritative leader and in turn is led by others.
Accordingly there is no fixed and constant authority, but
continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all,
voluntary authority and subordination." [Op. Cit., pp. 353-4]
"The basic error . . . is in believing that organisation
is not possible without authority.
H.1.9 L’organisation implique-t-elle la fin de la liberté ?
H.1.10 How does free love versus marriage indicate the weakness of Engels' argument?
H.1.11 Comment les anarchistes proposent-ils de diriger une usine ?
H.1.12 How does the class struggle refute Engels'
arguments that industry required leaving "all autonomy behind"?
"If managers' orders were completely obeyed, confusion would
result and production and morale would be lowered. In order to
achieve the goals of the organisation workers must often violate
orders, resort to their own techniques of doing things, and
disregard lines of authority. Without this kind of systematic
sabotage much work could not be done. This unsolicited sabotage
in the form of disobedience and subterfuge is especially necessary
to enable large bureaucracies to function effectively." [Social
Psychology of Industry by J.A.C. Brown, quoted in Direct Action
in Industry]
"Even the simplest repetitive job demands a certain minimum of
initiative and in this case it is failing to show any non-obligatory
initiative . . . [This] leads to a fall in production -- above all
in quality. The worker carries out every operation minimally;
the moment there is a hitch of any kind he [or she] abandons
all responsibility and hands over to the next man [or woman]
above him [or her] in the hierarchy; he works mechanically,
not checking the finished object, not troubling to regulate
his machine. In short he gets away with as much as he can,
but never actually does anything positively illegal." [Pierre
Dubois, Sabotage in Industry, p. 51]
"Resistance to exploitation expresses itself in a drop in
productivity as well as exertion on the workers' part . . .
At the same time it is expressed in the disappearance of
the minimum collective and spontaneous management and
organisation of work that the workers normally and of
necessity puts out. No modern factory could function for
twenty-four hours without this spontaneous organisation of
work that groups of workers, independent of the official
business management, carry out by filling in the gaps of
official production directives, by preparing for the
unforeseen and for regular breakdowns of equipment, by
compensating for management's mistakes, etc.
H.1.13 Is the way industry operates
"independent of all social organisation"?
"Management organises production with a view of achieving
'maximum efficiency.' But the first result of this sort of
organisation is to stir up the workers' revolt against
production itself . . . To combat the resistance of the
workers, the management institutes an ever more minute
division of labour and tasks . . . Machines are invented,
or selected, according to one fundamental criterion: Do
they assist in the struggle of management against workers,
do they reduce yet further the worker's margin of autonomy,
do they assist in eventually replacing him [or her]
altogether? In this sense, the organisation of production
today . . . is class organisation. Technology is
predominantly class technology. No . . . manager would
ever introduce into his plant a machine which would
increase the freedom of a particular worker or of a
group of workers to run the job themselves, even if
such a machine increased production.
"I have already said and I repeat; during all my life, I have
acted as an anarchist. The fact of having been given political
responsibility for a human collective cannot change my convictions.
It is under these conditions that I agreed to play the role
given to me by the Central Committee of the Militias.
"To Engels, the factory is a natural fact of technics, not
a specifically bourgeois mode of rationalising labour;
hence it will exist under communism as well as capitalism.
It will persist 'independently of all social organisation.'
To co-ordinate a factory's operations requires 'imperious
obedience,' in which factory hands lack all 'autonomy.'
Class society or classless, the realm of necessity
is also a realm of command and obedience, of ruler and
ruled. In a fashion totally congruent with all class
ideologists from the inception of class society, Engels
weds Socialism to command and rule as a natural fact.
Domination is reworked from a social attribute into a
precondition for self-preservation in a technically
advanced society." [Towards an Ecological Society,
p. 206]